Talk:Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations

Proposed Organization

The Sexual Misconduct Allegations that are well-sourced should be organized by the following Categories: 1. Sexual Assault 2. Sexual Harassment 3. Consensual Adultery

There was some prior discussion on this organization (e.g., is adultery misconduct). The Sexual Assault and Harassment categories come from Syracuse University based on Title IX. Adultery comes from the dictionary. In prior discussions it was noted that Adultery Allegations (well-sourced) were OK for Public Figures. BLP-WELLKNOWN: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

Also, in most States Adultery is a basis for divorce (not CA or DC since 2004), and is a criminal offense in around 20 states. Although, the states are gradually de-criminalizing it. Adultery is a type of Sexual Misconduct.

Anyone have feeling on organization by the above Typology or do we organize Chronologically and then note what Type of Sexual Misconduct each Allegation is???

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.194.3 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 

The first category should be the "confirmed misconduct eg Monica Lewinsky. Why is there not a detailed section for her? The use of the word "allegations" suggests that these are all stories. The Lewinsky scandal was confirmed sexual misconduct. Global theo (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"Other allegations" section WP:BLP issues

The "Other allegations" section is extremely problematic. It has become a list of people who have made allegations against Clinton, many times either naming the person and their allegation in general, but no reference, or just naming the person without even stating what their allegation is, and in many of those cases there is no reference. Remember, this is an article which focuses on a living person, and is recounting serious allegations against him, therefore it must be in strict compliance with WP:BLP. The unsourced allegations that I have tagged will be left up for 7 days, and at the end of that time, anything which does not have a source will be deleted as WP:BLPREMOVE instructs to do. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please allege problems with specific facts. Your claims now are conclusory. --JumpLike23 (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comment is not helpful. If you look at the history, you will see that I had tagged every unsourced and/or vague allegation in the section, but between the time I did that (and started this discussion) and the time you posted your comment, an anonymous user went ahead and completely deleted all the problematic allegations I had tagged. I think you will find if you get in the habit of looking at the history of a page that has been tagged for problems, especially if you are confused by what problems the person is bringing up, as you obviously were here, it can be immensely illuminating and help you avoid making unnecessary comments like the one you did here. Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

In terms of BLP Policy we have the following guidance about Adultery (there was a nice prior discussion on this topic, but it was Deleted): WP:PUBLICFIGURE WP:WELLKNOWN In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

My hope is to Walk Through the various Bill Clinton Affairs and other sexual misconduct, Put in the Talk Section those that are Well-sourced, get group agreement on that the sourcing is OK and then move them into the Article (or Delete them).

Collapsing off-topic general conversation about the subject per WP:TALK#USE

Allegations? He was impeached for Obstruction Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of representative for obstruction of justice. He also lied under oath about Monica Lewinsky. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/20/us/impeachment-overview-clinton-impeached-he-faces-senate-trial-2d-history-vows-job.html Bill Clinton admitted to a sexual relationship with an intern under his employment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/clinton081898.htm These are not "allegations". These are facts of history.

What about the blue dress? Global theo (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

This is an important page, and these allegations deserve to be aired. However, the previous version of the page, heavily edited by User:Pelejenny, was an egregious violation of WP:BLP. For example, a Tabloid-based allegation that Clinton assaulted a flight attendant--an allegation supported by anonymous sources, and never confirmed by the flight attendant herself--was presented as established fact. The same source alleged that Clinton had fathered children with a prostitute. [ Let's please stick to the allegations that have been reported by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Steeletrap (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a link that states a number of Women signed depositions that they did not have sex with Bill Clinton.

Eillen Wellston

I noted and referenced the following allegation of sexual misconduct. It was removed. I had several sources (mainly Capital Hill Blue 1999 article, although the allegation is repeated in over ten articles and a few books), the name of the reporters, the name of Person involved (Eileen Wellstone), and a statement from the reporters that they had talked with Ms. Wellstone. This Wiki article is about allegations. We have a specific person making a direct and published allegation. My take is that this allegation should be included in this Wiki article:

A then 19 year english woman Eileen Wellstone reported that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. He had a two-year Rhode Scholarship to study in Oxford. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl. He felt the girl had been traumatized and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case. Bill Clinton left England a year early without completing his Masters degree. Ms Wellstone re-confirmed the incident in 1999, but asked to be left alone. [3] [4]

3 ^ Daniel J. Harris & Teresa Hampton (1999). "Juanita isn't the only one: Bill Clinton's long history of sexual violence against women dates back some 30 years". Capital Hill Blue. Retrieved May 30, 2016. 4 ^ "A Millennial's Guide to Bill Clinton's 20+ Sex Scandals". Fox News. December 29, 2015. Retrieved May 30, 2016. 108.56.194.3 (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Come on guys, let me know if this allegation is not properly sourced so I can fix it (if possible). Otherwise, I will put it back in the article108.56.194.3 (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Dave in DC and Ms. Kyle

You should really first state your concerns in the Talk section before deleting material. The allegation from Dolley Kyle has been in the article for a number of months. I simply added a reference to the book she recently published on her alleged affair with Bill Clinton. It provided start and end dates. I believe you are incorrect on the Primary Source issue: See:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[3] Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

A primary source can be used, but without interpretation. In this case the author asserts that an affair occurred and outlines the dates. This is a "straightforward description statement of the alleged facts. In addition, a Google search will show lots of secondary sources (e.g., book reviews, interviews, newspaper articles, etc.). I am posting each new Female Lover in the Read Section to help ensure they to do not have problems with sources. If no one screams after four days, I will add it to the article. Augmenting information about females already in the Article should not be an issue, as long as the new information is sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.194.3 (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please Stop Prematurely Collapsing the Talk Section

Someone appears to be prematurely collapsing this Talk Section. I am currently attempting to get agreement on adding two females to this article on sexual misconduct allegations. There are Dolley Kyle and Eileen Wellstone. My goal is to eventually walk through the list of all females in the various articles and seeing which of these allegations are properly sourced. My hope is to put each female in the Talk Section and then correct any issues about the allegation that folks bring up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.194.3 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //http:/chblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and text removed on Eileen Wellstone Allegation

I have removed the material on Eileen Wellstone, which I think was recently added by an IP editor. None of the sources cited are sufficiently reliable to include this highly negative, unverified content:

As Noted below in Wikipedia Policy Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view, but they do have to be reliable. Because a source is a political opponent does not make it unreliable. Most of the time contraversial information comes from non-neutral sources. 108.56.194.3 (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Washington Times - a low-quality source that is often unreliable. The URL cited has no byline, and it is unclear whether the piece is an editorial or some other opinion piece, but it is certainly not news reporting. In any case, Wellstone's name only appears in a single sentence as part of a laundry list of names.
2. "Capitol Hill Blue" - an unreliable blog source; describes itself as a "daily political e-zine"; material about Wellstone is attributed to unnamed sources. Note that this website has included false material in the past, as noted by FactCheck.org
3. "Red Alert Politics" - this is erroneously cited as "Fox News" but is in fact rehosted/republished content from a partisan blog (Red Alert Politics describes itself on its website as an "online publication by young conservatives")
4. DailyDot - the URL cited is to an opinion piece, not a news piece, and DailyDot is a low-quality source. The article refers to "mofopolitics.com" which in turn refers to Capitol Hill Blue. So this is yet another rehash of low-quality, unverified content.
5. Sean Hannity website - a partisan, anti-Clinton pundit; obviously not a proper source
6. Roger Stone opinion piece on the Daily Caller - tremendously unreliable source; note that Stone is an active adviser to Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.

So I've removed this rubbish (again). This article implicates BLP considerations, and so we need to be extra vigilant about reliable sourcing. Neutrality^talk 17:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Eileen Wellstone reference was deleted (incorrectly I think). The six references provided were stated as not being reliable. There are a number of national newspapers including the Washngton Times, Fox News, Capital Hill Blue, Daily Dot, and in addition there are several books that mention this alleged assault. The Daily Dot, for example, is on the left-wing side of the political spetrum. I think this allegation should be in the article, multiple newspapers that can all be sued have published the allegation. I will look for a few more references (easy to find).

Eileen Wellstone is an English woman who said Clinton raped her in 1969 after she had met him at a pub near Oxford University. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholarship student at Oxford at that time. Ms Wellstone re-confirmed the incident in 1999, but asked to be left alone.

New Reference7-- Sydney Morning Hearld:

New Reference8 -- Jewish World Review

Assuming we cannot resolve this disagreement on the reliability of the references, how do we sent this debate upstream to the Wikipedia editors?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.194.3 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

References

108.56.194.3: as I explained above, those six references are not reliable. Most of them come from opinion pieces (not news accounts) and most are from low-quality partisan sources (the Daily Dot piece is an opinion column written by an unknown Ph.D. student and active Sanders support rather than a journalist)). The two new references you offer don't do any better. The Sydney Morning Herald piece is an opinion column by Paul Sheehan, who is a conservative columnist. He offers no source for the Wellstone account and mentions her name only in passing. Your second proposed reference is by Alicia Colon, who is similarly a conservative columnist. These sources just aren't sufficient. For "salacious" text such as the one you've offered, making direct accusations of misconduct, we need strong sourcing from mainstream sources' news sections. Neutrality^talk 17:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In my view, Neutrality has this analyzed correctly, in terms of Wikipedia policy. This article keeps being hijacked as a WP:COATRACK and requires monitoring by editors will-versed in WP:BLP. David in DC (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Eileen Wellstone (or Other) Allegation Sources

There had been a nice section in TALK looking at all the Wellstone allegation sources and stating the problems with each other (mainly that the authors were conservative or political opponents of the Clintons). I hope I did not accidently remove it, when I moved the Doyle section. It was my intent to walk through each concern about each source. Please put it back, if I am not the source of the problem. I think I can reconstruct the concerns if needed. The big one is that sources do not have to be neutral, they do have to reliable. Also it appears that Opnion pieces are acceptable for allegations, as long as they are sourced in our text.108.56.194.3 (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

In a prior deleted section. The person who did the Deletion stated the eight sources provided were not neutral or reliable. A number of the sources were opinion pieces.

REASONS TO DELETE WELLSTONE ALLEGATION:

108.56.194.3: as I explained above, those six references are not reliable. Most of them come from opinion pieces (not news accounts) and most are from low-quality partisan sources (the Daily Dot piece is an opinion column, for example, is an opinion column written by an unknown Ph.D. student, not a journalist)). The two new references you offer don't do any better. The Sydney Morning Herald piece is an opinion column by Paul Sheehan, who is a conservative columnist. He offers no source for the Wellstone account and mentions her name only in passing. Your second proposed reference is by Alicia Colon, who is similarly a conservative columnist. These sources just aren't sufficient. For "salacious" text such as the one you've offered, making direct accusations of misconduct, we need strong sourcing from mainstream sources' news sections. Neutrality^talk 17:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Where, I look at definition of neutrality in Wikipedia. The source does not have to be neutral. A Conservative Columnist (or a Liberal One) is fine. It is our writing that has to be neutral. - See below

 Neutrality

Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say.

The Question appears to be can an Opinion piece be reliable. I would argue Yes. The author on an Opinion piece from the Washington Times can still be sued. I will dig a bit more in Wikipedia Policy about Opinion articles. There are easily five or more print media organizations that have published this allegation. The fact that a number of them are Opinion pieces or Conservative should not make any difference. These Conservative sources just have to be as reliable as any Liberal source. The fact that some Wikipedia Editors may not like their politics is not a Wikpedia issue.

WP:RSOPINION Found a Wikipedia reference on Opinion. It appears they can be used as long as your provide the source (inline citation).

WP:COATRACK There was a concern that these Allegations were in Danger of being COATRACKED and hijacked. Someone might say that Bill Clinton had an affair with X and then killed the security guards who witnessed this affair. In the Records on this Article I have not seen this, so far it appears to be just a list of Sexual Assaults and Affairs.

On the Wellstone Allegation. One objection was that conservative media was not neutral. A second objection was that Opinion articles were not acceptable. I think I found Wiki policies above that clearly state Sources do not have to be neutral, they just have to reliable and cited opinions are OK. Another objective was that Capital Hills Blues was just an emagazine. Their web site states they were founded in 1994 (22 years ago) and that they are working journalists. Another objection is that the are not reliable. A Capital Hills Blues article on DUIs in Congress did not provide access to the raw data on convictions for DUI. I would argue that article in question did not claim to have raw data. Below are the citations I found the accuracy of this one Article:

Capital Hill Blue - FAQ History (from their site): Who, or what, is Capitol Hill Blue?

Capitol Hill Blue is a non-partisan, take-no-prisoners political news site launched in October 1994 by newspaperman Doug Thompson. That makes us the oldest surviving news site on the Internet. But don’t take our word for it. Go to Google and see if you can find anything older. Bet you can’t.

Are you a blog?

Good God no. We’re working journalists, not a group of malcontents who sit in front of our computers in our underwear. We work for a living and have lives. - they follow they moto that the role of a newspaperman to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” http://www.capitolhillblue.com/faqs

Capital Hill Blue critiqued by FactCheck.org and One Other Source about an Article on Congress: http://www.factcheck.org/tag/capitol-hill-blue/ http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp

Capital Hill Blues Notes that Fact Check has a much higher Error/Retraction rate than it does and writes fewer articles http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/17669

Also almost all FactChecking organizations have Strong political leanings. The Anneburg FactCheck.org basically takes demoncratic positions some 70% of the time. Conservative FactCheck orgs take conservative positions (I will get the citation). Basically, Fact Checking organizations do not add new information, they all appear to have Liberal and/or Conservative leanings an d will confirm their "Facts" accordingly. When you look at the Capital Hills Blues article on Wellstone, they claim to have interviewed her directly, she confirmed the 1969 sexual assault, and asked to left alone. Another nine organizations have carried this allegation (most of them conservative). All of these organizations do Fact Checking and all of them would be libel to a suite by the Clintons If what they said was not Fact Checked. I argue that the Wellstone Allegation should be included. We can just note that is is carried mainly in conservative media and that liberal media (except for a couple of opinion articles) have not mentioned it. I will propose updated text soon. 108.56.194.3 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC). It appears that the Capital Hill Blues is non-partison reliable data source that does extensive fact checking. It is also more accurate than FactCheck.org. Another Wikipedia editor did not like using a Fox News source, which in turn pointed to Red Alert Politics, which is an online publication written by young conservatives for young conservatives. It is published by MediaDC, which also publishes The Weekly Standard and The Washington Examiner. Again, Conservative Media sources are fine (so are Liberal Ones) the question is are they reliable? Is Media DC a reliable media source. As an organization, they are libel for what they print. Media DC does fact checking and I can find no links or studies that state they are unreliable. They are a conservative media organization. http://redalertpolitics.com/contact-us/#zjzlKOMQ0Zo40HT9.99 The same arguments apply to the Washington Times media source(s).

 The proposed updated allegation is below:

Eileen Wellstone Allegation UPDATED - note sources

Eileen Wellstone is an English woman who alleged Clinton raped her in 1969 after she had met him at a pub near Oxford University, England. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholarship student at Oxford at that time. Ms Wellstone re-confirmed the incident in 1999, but asked to be left alone. This allegation is mentioned in many non-partisan and conservative media sources. Except for Saloon.com and a few opinion articles liberal media sources do not mention this allegation at all.

Added a recent Saloon.com source on this Allegation, which is so far the Only Liberal media source on this Allegation. 108.56.194.3 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Did not receive any comments, assume all is well now in terms of citations, moved Wellstone allegation to article.

Also, I think you prematurely delete TALK Sections. It is hard to preserve context..

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.194.3 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 

Proposed Dolley Kyle

Below is the proposed section (updated) on Dolley Kyle. I added in a couple of secondary sources. I think it belongs in the front section of this article (vs. Other allegations): This Allegation is now in the article. Moved this section to the End of Talk.108.56.194.3 (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

As part of Paula Jones sexual harrasment case Dolly Kyle was deposed and admitted that she had known Bill Clinton since he was eleven and had an affair with him starting around 1974 and ending in 1992. Ms. Kyle became a lawyer in Texas. Dolly Kyle began writing a "semi-autobiographical novel" about her alleged affair with Bill Clinton. In the publication process, Browning asserted that Clinton did everything in his power to prohibit and undermine publication. Browning sued Clinton for damages, but the US Court of Appeals denied her appeal. She subsequently published a memoir (Hillary the Other Woman: A Political Memoir) on their alleged 18-year affair.

Below is the proposed section (updated) on Dolley Kyle. My prior attempt to add this section to talk was deleted. Not sure what happened, but Ms Kyle was already in this article. I added five secondary sources below. Basically, this Allegation has primary (deposition & book) and secondary (four+ articles) sources. I think this allegation belongs in the front section of this article (vs. Other allegations). Unless I hear objections, I will move this well-sourced allegation into Article in around 30 hours:

References

Elizabeth Gracen

Elizabeth Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1983, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown in 1982. At the request of the 1992 Clinton Presidential campaign she denied that she had sex with Bill Clinton. As part of the Paula Jones investigation her friend Judy Stokes stated Gracen had told her that Clinton had raped her in the back of a limousine. In 1998, in response to what she called false media claims (from the Paul Jones litigation) that Clinton had raped her, Elizabeth Ward Gracen (former Miss Arkansas and Miss America) recanted her then six-year-old denial and stated she had a one-night stand with Clinton in 1983. She denied the rape allegation from her friend Judy Stokes. Gracen later apologized to Hillary Clinton.

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //http:/chblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Epstein

The Jeffery Epstein stuff is a notable omission here, specifically because he was accused by one of the girls named Virginia Roberts http://pagesix.com/2015/01/24/sex-slave-claims-bill-clinton-visited-epsteins-orgy-island/?_ga=1.43473061.101799616.1410668357 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363452/Bill-Clinton-15-year-old-masseuse-I-met-twice-claims-Epsteins-girl.html97.91.188.153 (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I can be corrected if I'm wrong, but the first one seems like an unreliable source. The second one doesn't seem to suggest any sexual misconduct; it only suggests a meeting between Clinton and possible accuser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaperkids (talk • contribs) 11:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC) I

I have to admit this story feels very unreliable, not to mention the Mr. Trump is the one being accused of being associated with Jeffrey Epstein, not Mr. Clinton. Inquisitor is just as reliable as the National Enquirer . — Preceding unsigned comment added (talk • contribs) 1:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC) I

List

This article, is basically just a list. Shouldn't it be List of sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton? 202.155.85.18 (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Linking to allegations concerning Donald Trump

So stumbled upon this article, given latest presidential debate... Why is there a link at the bottom towards Trumps sexual misconduct allegations? Well given the current political conduct I can see how, via guilt by association, one can see Bill's actions reflecting negatively on Hillary... I can see how someone might feel the need to also also dirty Trumps image, but... well I guess this comes down to whether Wikipedia is a political comment outlet, or if it is a source of facts. if you went back in time 10 years then the link to Trump would have been bizarre and out of place, especially since it's the first and only reference to Trump in the article. Now I'm sure this link will not be removed, but shouldn't there be some context around it? Granted this context would and could only come off as a silly justification, but at least it would give some insights as to why or how Trumps sexual misconduct is at all relevant to Bill Clinton's. Something not currently given in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.69.22.122 (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed that wikilink as irrelevant. Even if someone would disagree about relevancy, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations was created just today, is undergoing major edits, and has been proposed for deletion (although I think it is likely to survive). Note that I changed your section heading "Political Bias" to "Linking to allegations concerning Donald Trump". Politrukki (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the link as it is a similar article about another politician. I see nothing irrelevant that. -- GB fan 12:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It may be more relevant now that Trump responded to the Access Hollywood tape by raising Bill Clinton's alleged behaviour. Many media commentators have responded by pointing out the parallels with allegations against Trump, which has sort of linked the two in the media narrative. Presumably if we keep it, the Trump allegations page should also have a link to this one. It would be interesting to hear other editor's opinions on how relevant this link is. Madshurtie (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

GB fan and Madshurtie, Trump has never held office as a politician. Hence none of the alleged incidents related to Trump could have happened while Trump held office. Trump and Bill Clinton are both celebrities. Then why don't we link to all sexual misconduct allegations related to celebrities in see also section? If, however, Clinton and Trump cases are more than loosely related, better option would be making the connection clear in the prose and its sources. Failing to do that would mean that contentious association like that could possibly violate biographies of living persons policy. Right now it is clear that there's no clear consensus pro or against including link to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations in see also section, and the conservative option is leaving it out, which is in this case is also means maintaining the status quo. Note that link to this article in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#See also was removed with edit summary "no, do not belong here". Politrukki (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There are only three accusations we should cover

Only three women have accused him of sexual misconduct: Jones, Willey, and Braoddrick. The other accusers in addition to these three either (1) accuse him of adultery (which is not "sexual misconduct," but consensual sex involving deceit to one's spouse) or (2) do not exist or have not gone public yet. There is a defunct blog that cites 10 accusers, but this is a hoax (albeit one that has been reproduced on a few conservative rags). http://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-expelled-from-oxford/ If more women come out, we should absolutely cover it. But as of now, there are three accusers, and saying there are more violates BLP. Steeletrap (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The panoply of false allegations

It strikes me that because they are 'out there' and swirling about, the existence of the hoax sexual misconduct allegations, in the context of all the various 'Bill Clinton had loads of people bumped off/did X/Y/Z' hoax allegations that are also out there on the internet is probably worth mentioning, because it's a factor that seems particularly relevant to the Clintons, who irrespective of what they may or may not actually be guilty of, are regularly accused of anything up to mass murder... also, Monica Lewinsky, the sexual contact between her and Clinton was consensual, but still surely problematic - The President of the USA & a White House intern = very odd power dynamics & at least the risk in any other workplace of sexual harassment charges... is that sexual assault? No... Is it worth tracking? Yes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaylock (talk • contribs) 02:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Page categorization

Visitors to this page may wish to compare Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct allegations with those of other politicians. For that reason, I propose the page is categorized under Category:Political sex scandals in the United States. Although this category is not an exact match to this article's content (not all sexual misconduct is a sex scandal, and vice versa), it seems appropriate. Similar articles are categorized as such. Big T (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Strike this stupid paragraph

There is a heavy handed paragraph here that isn't directly related to the subject matter, but only because:

1. It's not very well known, sorry. 2. "some conservative media outlets" is weak weasel wording, and 3. Smells like a liberal push-back that is out of place.

In the 2016 election, some conservative media outlets have claimed "twelve women" have accused Clinton of assault. The source of this claim is a fabricated story by the now-defunct blog Capitol Hill Blue, which classified consensual affairs (e.g. Elizabeth Ward Gracen) and consensual flirting as sexual assault, and also made up names of non-existent women whom Clinton had supposedly harassed at Oxford and as a law professor.[1] The Capitol Hill Blue forgery was the source behind Roger Stone's book, The Clinton's War on Women.

It doesn't matter in the least what ***errant*** "out-there" claims there are. What matters are the valid claims. I understand the ire and need for some folks to establish clarity, but the way to do that is to not open up every single controversial topic that is fraudulent. What next, bring up every whackjob claim by tabloids? Strike this paragraph down now, as it smacks of one side feeling like it's feathers are ruffled, and Trump should not be involved in this at all.Tgm1024 (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Other allegations

Where are the other allegations? Where are Eileen Wellstone, Sandra Allen James and Christy Zercher.