Talk:Monica Lewinsky

2015 cigar fundraiser

should this be included? http://electleaders.com/2015/04/hillary-furious-as-thousands-of-americans-send-cigars-to-her-office/

No. Tvoz/talk 04:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Legal bills?

Monica 'was still beset by high legal bills...' Who was she in legal dispute with? Valetude (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? She had to retain counsel to get her through the grand jury testimony, her dealings with Kenneth Starr, potential perjury charges, and subsequent negotiations to obtain immunity, etc. - those legal bills must have been huge. I think the article is clear on this. Tvoz/talk 08:30, February 15, 2014‎ (UTC)

Heads-up

According to a story on MSNBC just now, Lewinsky has an article/interview in Vanity Fair coming out shortly - I won't be surprised if we see the return of the crazies here. We have pending review status, or whatever it's called these days, so we should be ok but should keep an eye out. Tvoz/talk 18:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course those you disagree with are "crazy". You are a typical "elitist Wikipedian". 71.217.106.227 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment. And if this was your edit, please keep your POV out of your editing. Tvoz/talk 06:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

At the same time, please keep YOUR bias off the talk page. Deal?HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Tvoz/talk 03:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Bronia Poleshuk Jewish?

Dg17489n (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)The page claims that Monica's maternal grandmother- Bronia Poleshuk was Jewish. The sources quoted (footnotes 7,8,9) don't state that fact! this seems to be a mistake!

It's not a mistake - some sources are dead links, unfortunately, but the LA Times article which makes the point is still available. Tvoz/talk 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dg17489n (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)This is inaccurate. The La Times article does not say that Bronia Poleshuk is Jewish. It says "Somehow Samuel Vilensky got to the United States and, by 1948, had established himself as a self-employed import-exporter and married Bronia Poleshuk, a 28-year-old Russian refugee born in the British Concession at Tianjin, China. She had attended Yenching (now Beijing) University and, like thousands of other Jewish and White Russian emigres, apparently survived World War II in northeastern China, only to flee the ensuing civil war."

protected

I've protected this page for a week over the back and forth regarding "alleged" vs. "reported". Hopefully you folks can work that out here. — Ched :  ?  02:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:WTA, I think that neither one should be used here. Just use "Lewinsky said ..." or "Lewinsky stated ...". Those are the best terms to avoid this kind of trouble.

Another thing that's caused reversions recently is the statement "By 2014, she had still not held a full-time job since leaving the Pentagon in 1997.", sourced to the story "Monica Lewinsky's hard-won perspective" by Todd S. Purdum in Politico, which begins with "Her last full-time job was as a 24-year-old aide to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs." Dan0 00 reverted with the edit summary "The article previously mentions running a company, and hosting a TV show. Both of these are full-time jobs." Then confusingly an IP editor both restored it and then took it out, with the edit summary "Television show was five episodes and the company only carried her name. Purses carried her name, no indication of full time job." I believe we should go with what Purdum stated – he's an experienced reporter and is clearly aware of Lewinsky's jobs, since later he recaps her post-scandal career with "She has worked as a spokeswoman for Jenny Craig, played host of a reality television program called 'Mr. Personality,' designed her own line of handbags, ..." If he says none of these were full-time, why should we doubt it? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with "stated"and agree the sourced no full-time job wording should be there. Tvoz/talk 05:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• If there's consensus to change something you can use the {{Edit protected}} template here, or - feel free to ping me, although I only protected it for a week. — Ched :  ?  01:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

remove line about desiring marriage?

I propose that the statement, "A stable relationship leading to marriage, which she reportedly desired, had also not happened" be removed from this article. As currently phrased, it seems both specious and sexist. Essentially it says, "Monica Lewinsky didn't get married." Ok, she also didn't do a lot of other things. Lots of people don't get married. It can't be referenced in the Vanity Fair article w/o becoming a Vanity Fair subscriber, so it's difficult to check what the original quote was. If it's valuable and insightful, perhaps there's a way to recast the sentence so that it contributes to the reader's understanding w/in the piece, w/o them having to read the Vanity Fair article. Quirkify (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The source isn't the Vanity Fair piece she wrote, it's this freely available Politico story that Todd S. Purdum wrote: "Lewinsky has indeed endured a nearly two-decade ordeal, in which she went from the giddy high of her involvement with the president to becoming 'possibly the first person whose global humiliation was driven by the Internet.' ... But her notoriety has also repeatedly cost her job opportunities with nonprofit organizations. Marriage (something she once told a co-worker's wife she deeply wanted) has eluded her, and even her 'blind dates' have been by definition only half-blind."

Including this isn't sexist, because the desire for a stable, lasting relationship is something that is universal in most humans, whether male or female, straight or gay, all races, all nationalities. Not everyone finds it, as you point out, but she has a lot less of a chance that most people do. The point to including this is to illustrate that for some unwise sexual/romantic behavior in her early twenties, her whole life has severely disrupted. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Quirkify that we should not be including the assertion concerning marriage. It is merely based on "something she once told a co-worker’s wife". Bus stop (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, It's not our job to critique a reliably sourced journalist's decision to include that point. Purdum wrote it, based on his journalistic standards, and it was published in a reliable source, and it's not for us to second guess that decision. I agree with Wasted Time R that including it is not sexist - it is poignant and a good illustration of the impact her actions and the subsequent scandal had on her life. Tvoz/talk 23:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be considered sexist in the sense that women might get judged harsher than men (wrt being considerd an undesirable mate) for the same lurid behavior. Monica was a slut while Bill got high-fives, so to say. Since both men and women tend to desire stable-long term relationships there is nothing particularly sexist about saying she didn't like missing out on that, a desire for marriage is not some percieved 'feminine weakness' (except among some really close-minded individuals for whom marriage is 'prostitution')

The reference to marriage seems to be a good example of the way the scandal changed her entire life for years to come, which has become more relevant now that she is attempting to reinvent herself as anti-cyberbullying activist Selena1981 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit protected request: please fix ref 32

I request that a ref be fixed. The date on ref 32 is correct, so the extra words ("[date may be incorrect]") need to be removed because they are screwing up the citation:

• "Monica: It's In the Bag". People. January 12, 1999 [date may be incorrect]. Check date values in: |date= (help)

BullRangifer (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Done — Ched :  ?  08:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Job Title

It's interesting because some people who know her might not know what her position is. Being that certain sectors of society are familiar with American Government, it's clear that some people have restrictions on both what they know and don't know.