Talk:Bill Clinton

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Clinton article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bill Clinton has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 1, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
June 16, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 8, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 19, 2006	Good article reassessment	Kept
July 27, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
December 19, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
October 4, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
October 27, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
September 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government GA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).

University of Oxford GA‑class Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics GA‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arkansas / District of Columbia / Massachusetts / Cape Cod and the Islands / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government / Governors GA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Arkansas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance).
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as High-importance).
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Cape Cod and the Islands (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as High-importance).

Template:WP1.0

Kosovo Unassessed

	Bill Clinton is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007.
Comments: "thorough and unbiased, giving fair weight to both Clinton accomplishments and scandals."; "The bulk of it appeared to have been written by the Clinton Museum and Library in Little Rock, Ark."; "a great place for a student to begin building his or her knowledge on Clinton." Please examine the findings.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Peter Meyers (20 September 2001). "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You". New York Times.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by .

Edit request on 12 November 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The fifth sentence of the third paragraph in the lead reads, "After a failed health care reform attempt, Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, for the first time in forty years." Please remove the comma after "1994". There is no reason for a comma to be used there. 173.160.120.30 (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I've rewritten the sentence to make it clearer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence now has a comma splice and a dangling modifier. Please insert the word "and" after the comma and change "After a failed attempt at introducing" to "After he failed to introduce". As it is written, the sentence makes it sound like the Republicans tried to introduce Clinton's health care reform plan. 173.160.120.30 (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Better? Rivertorch (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. 173.160.120.30 (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thank you for taking the trouble to comment and follow up. Rivertorch (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honors

President Clinton has honorary British appointments. Why is this not listed? 72.228.22.228 (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Shgdjf345 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

possible edits to introduction

I'm not sure if this is important, but I'm thinking about a rewrite of "He implemented Don't ask, don't tell, a controversial intermediate step to full gay military integration"; a few changes I'm considering to the introduction: using "homosexual" as opposed to "gay", for formal style; adding "He also implemented" because the previous sentence also related to a bill being signed into law, and a citation for "After a failed health care reform attempt, the Republican Party won control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years." I would appreciate further discussion of these possible changes, and whether they should be made. --Zer0n888 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be OK to change the word gay in this case. If you check the following reference (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/654), they do indeed use the word homosexual in this context. However, for clarity, I would replace the phrase, "intermediate step to full gay military integration" to read "intermediate step to full integration of homosexuals into the military" On the other hand, do not replace gay in the phrase "gay and lesbian liaison office" which occurs later in the article, because that is what the White House in fact calls it.--Toploftical (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! much appreciated. the other 2 issues still go unaddressed, however. --Zer0n888 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various style manuals and dictionaries deprecate the use of "homosexual" as a noun because it is widely considered offensive. The word "gay" is quite acceptable for formal writing. Rivertorch (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "homosexual" means simply "same-sexual" so one who is attracted to the same sex, whereas "gay" simply means "pleased or gleeful". I have used the word "homosexual" in many conversations without objection, and I have never heard the word "homosexual" used as an insult. --Zer0n888 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but we don't rely on how individual editors have heard words used; that's original research. At least three major style manuals deprecate the usage that I described, and at least one major dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary, has contained a usage note to that effect at least since its third edition (published over 20 years ago). As for the word "gay", it has multiple meanings. If you can find any reliable source that describes its usage in the sexual orientation sense as informal or nonstandard, I'd be interested to see it. I assume you're not actually arguing that our readership would mistake the current wording as referring to pleased or gleeful soldiers. Rivertorch (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I appreciate the comment, and I will most likely keep the "gay" used on the page, although the source does use the word "homosexual", however, and we can talk about this more privately(perhaps through the village pump, reply if you're interested), I still see "homosexual" as a perfectly reasonable term(again, I would be happy to discuss this at the village pump). the other 2 issues(see first post) are open to discussion, as well. --Zer0n888 (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple Village Pump pages, none of which is usually on my watchlist, so a link would be appreciated (at my talk page or here) if you start such a discussion. Just by way of background, recent discussion on this general usage topic has occurred at a relevant WikiProject. (Btw, please see Help:Talk_page#Indentation for advice on formatting a discussion thread. It doesn't matter too much when there are only two or three people talking, but the way we're doing it now could get very confusing if lots of editors joined in.) Rivertorch (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

College and law school years

The last three citations in the third paragraph (13, 14, & 15) are from self-published sources. Self-published sources are to never be used for biographies of living people. I think it's safe to assume that conservatives and/or Vietnam veterans would criticize Clinton for this during his campaign but these specific sources need to be removed. I will add a citation from the LA Times that claims the incident was politically damaging. Ceaseless (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second president to be impeached?

"This made Clinton only the second U.S. president to be impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson)."

Wouldn't better wording be second president to face an impeachment trial? He was ultimately acquitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.63.120 (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being impeached = facing an impeachment trial. He was not removed from office, but he was definitely impeached. That's like saying someone was never on trial when they're just found not guilty. They still had the trial.--Louiedog (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worship?

If I were to have landed on earth from another planet, or a distant country, and read this article, I'd assume nearly all the best about B.C. after reading it. The intro itself is filled with superlative adjectives and emphasizes his "accomplishments" based on narrowed polls which really reflect more the economy of the time than the person himself. Where is the personal analysis of said "man?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.172.209.217 (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK ?

I don't want to get in a reversion war when I am not an expert on the topic. this edit reverted my earlier reversion. Whywhenwhohow (talk · contribs) and I seem to disagree on this. I will call in some experts on the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the revert of that contribution which seemed to contain links to very parisan articles. Republican revolution? Other links are not needed as they are in the article already elsewhere. Some stuff seems like it would be uncontroversial to return while other stuff should remain off the page. Please discuss this and not just look outside the article for input before a discussion is actually made here.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put back the links to lists by age & succession, & the Vietnam link; the Republican Revolution might be a bit POV, but that's how it was characterized & that's when it happened. (Not having read the page, if it's more about why & how than when, I'd delete it, too.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those links violate the guidelines on link clarity, easter eggs, and dates (WP:LINKCLARITY, WP:EGG, MOS:UNLINKDATES). Also, it is not necessary to link American or United States in the English Wikipedia. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your individual objections to each of the following that I would like to restore to the article:

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whywhenwhohow, please comment on these items individually by the end of the month or I will do a wholesale reversion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irish/Scotch-Irish?

Bill Clinton has mentioned his "Irish ansectors" in speeches giveen around St. Patrick's Day. What IS his ancestry? Does he have any documentation that proves he is of Irish descent or does he just wish it should be so and because he's Bill Clinton, I'm supposed to accept his word for it? Where is his evidence? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]