Talk:Bill Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject University of Oxford (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / Arkansas / District of Columbia / Massachusetts / Cape Cod and the Islands / Government / Governors / Presidential elections / Presidents (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Cape Cod and the Islands (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Presidents (marked as High-importance).
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Bill Clinton at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Good article 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.

Typo in 3rd Paragraph[edit]

"First" is misspelled: "... the fiurst from the baby boomer generation"

I would have fixed but the page is locked for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Dustin (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wealth paragraph in health section[edit]

The last paragraph in the 'Health' section deals with Clinton's income from speeches. Rather, this paragraph would be appropriate in the next section entitle 'Wealth'.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

There is not yet a WikiProject banner to place on this talk page, but interested page watchers are welcome to join WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to Hillary Rodham Clinton. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

To Bill Clinton page editors and writers...[edit]

...his mother, Virginia, doesn't have a Wikipedia page! His poor old mom, who lived to see him in the White House (she died in 1994), who had so many colorful stories told about her that they could fill a book (and probably have), has no page here. I found this out when her non-linked name was removed from Bill Clinton's template. I don't know enough about her to start one, but maybe somebody can consider putting up a Virginia page. Thanks. Randy Kryn 21:06 14 April, 2015 (UTC)

We would need to see reliable sources that support her claim to notability independent of simply being a former president's mother; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. In looking through the bios of William Jefferson Blythe Jr., Roger Clinton Sr., and Jeff Dwire, I'm not really seeing much to justify those articles either. Each of those 3 were last up for deletion in 2008-2009, when notability was much more loosey-goosey than it is now, so each could benefit from a renewed nomination. Tarc (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Tarc; they likely don't have enough to stand on their own. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The name Clinton without evaluation is already a blessing. Worthy is bill worthy is Hillary, worthy is chelsea and to the CLINTONS of the world. Klinhton (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Begin consideration of moving this page?[edit]

Discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request suggests that we ought to disregard search engine numbers and base titling on ‎the most formal usage presented by other encyclopedias and high level biographers. I've looked at some, and so can confidently report that all reference "William Jefferson Clinton," or at least "William J. Clinton." It may conceivably be his preference as well, seeing use in his oaths of office, and many official documents. This in tandem with a jarring inconsistency between the regalness of "Hillary Rodham" against the plainness of "Bill" makes one wonder if to be consistent they ought to be set at the same level of formality, no? Pandeist (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Invoking Bart Simpson...If this isn't a block-worthy example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I'll eat my shorts. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish. Do you not agree that high-level sources universally reference him as "William Jefferson"? It's worth discussing. Pandeist (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
No, this is not block-worthy and if I were treated in the same way, I would take offense. All that aside, why not provide actual counter-reasoning? I'm not currently taking a position or saying that I agree with what either of you say, but seriously, invoking WP:POINT just because someone disagrees with you is disruptive in itself. Dustin (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Look -- here, according to Commons, is his own signature as "William J. Clinton" taken from one of his bills signed: William J Clinton signature.svg.... Pandeist (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
So, signatures imply a preferred name? Curious. Can you reconcile your call to rename the Hillary Rodham Clinton article to Hillary Clinton when her signature appears as thus; Hillary Rodham Clinton Signature.svg ? Tarc (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh sweet Tarc -- the question is all about reconciliation. It is about reconciling the title of this page with the inconsistent special preference given another. Why would we not address William Jefferson as he is universally treated by high level biographers, by several other encyclopedias, and in numerous high-profile situations by his very own hand? I wish to reconcile the disparate segregation of these flipsides to a decades-long pairing. Pandeist (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Only my mistress calls me "sweet", first off. Second, you didn't answer the question, so let's try again;
  • "High-level biographers" and his "own hand" go by "William Jefferson Clinton", so you wish his article title to be "William Jefferson Clinton" rather than "Bill Clinton"
  • "High-level biographers" and her "own hand" go by "Hillary Rodham Clinton", so you wish her article title to be "Hillary Clinton" rather than "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
Explain the different treatment. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The different treatment is the situation as it stands. If high-level biographies and significant signatures are to be counted above other factors (and search engine numbers discounted) then both articles ought to be at their formal names -- William Jefferson and Hillary Rodham. If the common man's usage is to prevail, then both titles ought to be at their dinner-table names, simply Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Pandeist (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If you propose this here and support a name change there, then that is a blatant hypocrisy that you still refuse to admit. Tarc (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This makes no sense. Bill's middle name is "Jefferson". Hillary's middle name is "Diane". Hillary Rodham was Hillary's family name, thus her name, for a long long time, and she had many accomplishments before marrying Bill and changing her name to Hillary Rodham Clinton (reluctantly if what I read is true). So if Rodham is her family name, not her middle name, it's apples and mailboxes, or cuttlefish and oranges. They are two different species of names. p.s. Interesting how the "Clinton" in both their signatures looks extremely alike in some aspects, and different in others, but some strokes are pretty close there. Randy Kryn 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
But the issue is what they are called in high-level biographies, not how they came called that. Insofar as bios toss search engine hits. Pandeist (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support current title Bill is his common name, and the page should be kept at its current title. However, zero harm in discussing it; the discussion is NOT disruptive. pbp 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
There's not a proposal yet -- we're yet uncovering the facts!! Pandeist (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The following paragraph contains (potentially helpful and applicable) mockery[edit]

Because Encyclopedia Britannica and every other encyclopedia of note uses the article titles "Jimmy Carter," "Bill Clinton," "Hillary Rodham Clinton," "Golda Meir," and "Cristina Fernández de Kirchner," we must not follow their lead. Why not? Because only encyclopedia-makers do those elitist intellectual things like give more weight to certain sources. Those dorky eggheads at Britannica probably give excessive consideration to the names that people use as authors of their own published works, the names that people use in their own autobiographies, the names that people prefer in their encyclopedia entries, and the choices of other encyclopedias. That's the ultimate in intellectual incest. Why can't they just ignore stupid things like books and do a google count to reach decisions like we do? Ideas need to be subordinate to google counts in the 21st century, Britannica! Just learn from us. Our goal should be to remove Britannica's inconsistencies and create a level playing field where nobody receives special preference. The name used in my favorite blog by this smart kid Timothy from five miles down the road should count just the same as an autobiography written by the article's subject. (Yay for Timothy! Nice blog, Timothy! There's one google count for the name used by Timothy! Woo! Autobiography names? You suck!) Some encyclopedias might even take the distinction between men's middle names and women's birth names into account in their decisions. Obviously, real-world encyclopedias have far too many female editors. We don't have to follow their lead. We don't even have to be an encyclopedia at all. We could create something entirely new and finally discard our outdated encyclopedia label entirely by fully embracing a new term for our over-politicized, over-argumentative, mostly male and often obsessive nutjob brand. Removing the intellectual burden of being an encyclopedia from Wikipedia would have a positive impact on donations in the short term, and it would lead to fewer disputes where people have to do all that hard stuff like wear thinking caps. Man, who would want to read this long paragraph? TL;DR, dude. Flying Jazz (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Predicted replies: " you're making fun of the idea because you just don't like it, right?" "Why don't you cite policy?" Flying Jazz (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
And would you agree User:Flying Jazz that most high-level biographies (lengthy books at that, of much more substance than Britannica's pages muster) use "William Jefferson Clinton"? I take your screed as endorsing this formal name as used in such sources, and in many encyclopedias as well. Pandeist (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. The distinctions among "formal usage," "common man's usage," "plainness," and "regalness" is something you want to discuss for reasons that seem to have nothing to do with encyclopedia-building. Perhaps it's a rhetorical tactic. Maybe it's some misplaced desire for consistency or you have some political agenda. I don't know.
  2. My screed gives precedence to the names used in other encyclopedias. For politicians, these tend to be the names used in their autobiographies and memoirs.
  3. A high-level biography may use a different name than an autobiography/memoir in order to suit the author or publisher of that biography, not the subject. That's why the biographer's editorial decision about the name isn't relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. It would be relevant to an encyclopedia article about the book.
  4. On the other hand, because a naming decision in an autobiography/memoir was made by the subject, that editorial decision does have something to do with the subject and that autobiographer's choice is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject AND ALSO about the book.
  5. The counterargument to this way of thinking involves citing times and places when the subject used a different name from the one used in his or her autobiography or memoir. This counterargument misses the unique role of autobiographies/memoirs in encyclopedia-making and bibliography (in the sense of library science). Autobiographies/memoirs inform encyclopedia-makers about how the subject presents his or her name as a simultaneously cited author and subject without the explicit other purposes of campaign literature or signatures.
  6. That's why sane encyclopedias weigh autobiographies/memoirs for naming decisions to such a great extent. It's because that name is how the author/subject has cited himself or herself purely as an author/subject.
  7. But at Wikipedia, that obvious bibliographically sound dual-role self-citation is merely another opportunity to over-politicize, over-argue, and dehumanize the subject, especially politicians. It's misrepresented by nitwits as something the subject wants for their encyclopedia article or for posterity instead of as a uniquely useful bibliographic resource that can and should also serve as an article name. Of course, at the current Hillary renaming debate, a preference was apparently given to Wikipedia about her article name. But that's not the case here.
  8. The policy at WP:COMMONNAME should be tweaked in my view to give additional weight to the names of people as used in the titles of autobiographies/memoirs, if one is available and if a common name is used there. This would give editors an explanation about one reason why "other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful" to reach naming decisions. The more Wikipedia editors understand about encyclopedic decision-making, the less wackiness there will be. After this wackiness is over, maybe I'll try to talk to folks over there about tweaking the policy. But I'm not optimistic about the outcome. Flying Jazz (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham[edit]

@SNUGGUMS, Randy Kryn, and Winkelvi: The issue of spouse names was discussed at the infobox talk page a month ago. The documentation was even changed. Consensus then was to have the common name or the article name used, not the pre-marriage name. Note that the infobox says spouse, not "married". If y'all are staunchly opposed, I'll start an RfC on the topic for more input if you'd like. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I see a discussion, but I don't see a declared consensus or a closure of the discussion with consensus. And yes, I'm staunchly opposed to the surname being Clinton when it's not reflected in the article and it makes no logical sense. He married Hillary Rodham, not Hillary Clinton. -- WV 17:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, the box says "spouse" not "person they married". His spouse is Hillary Clinton. And that's what she's referred to in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We probably need to have a wider consensus on this because the other POTUS should line up too, but they don't. Obama's wife is listed as Michelle Obama but JFK's is listed as Bouvier. FDR's wife is Eleanor Roosevelt but John Adams' is listed as Abigail Smith. Calidum T|C 17:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, true that. I'll start an RfC a bit later today. Gotta go run some errands. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Er . . . Eleanor Roosevelt was also her name before she was married. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I looked at the presidential navboxes as well and they are all over the place, but it looks like the majority of them list the name of the woman at the time that he married her, her maiden name (maybe someone can do a full survey of all the U.S. presidents, I have to sign off soon). Thus Hillary Rodham is as reasonable as Abigail Smith, who John Adams married. As a wider discussion, maybe it can be summarized better, and since it looks like a full discussion will take place I think the maiden name is the way to go, as it has in the past on presidential infoboxes. Guess it depends solely on the definition of 'spouse', and the discussion should include a decision of what millisecond in time does one name become another name. What do sources say a spouse is (depending on what the meaning of the word "is" is, to quote a wise and/or sneaky man). Do they say spouse is the present marriage partner only, or that it includes the entire term of the marriage since the ceremony, a ceremony which would have started out with Hillary Rodham walking down the aisle and Hillary Rodham Clinton walking back. So does the entire ceremony hinge on the transfer of title (i.e. the name of the male participant in the spousehood now gives his wife the principal name, with her maiden name seldom to be spoken of again, except on all her books and job titles) from the wife to the husband, including her former name, so at what legal moment of that two-person-becoming-one during the ceremony does this occur, when her dad gives her away? Randy Kryn 18:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The legal moment occurs when the paperwork to change the name is filed and approved afaik. Nothing in the ceremony. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you are looking for the legal moment with Hillary Rodham, it never happened because she did not take his name, when they married. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? Do you have a source handy? Did she ever legally take his name, tax filings and all? Randy Kryn 21:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, seriously. She did not take his name when they married, and was not required to file any paperwork to "allow" her to retain her own name. (Here's a source on a quick look for you, Randy - there may be better ones.) In New York, for example, the name you use consistently is your name - you can use your husband's name or your own, but you have to be consistent for it to be your legal name. The IRS has always been very understanding about this, by the way - no special filings needed. Tvoz/talk 22:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Then, of course, Bill Clinton's spouse is Hillary Rodham, under at least two definitions and probably more. Randy Kryn 2:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have started an RfC on this topic. It can be found at Template_talk:Infobox_person#RfC:_Spouse_parameter. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    If you started an Rfc why didn't you direct it to this talk page, where the question is being discussed already. I see you are against using maiden names. Please post the discussion to this page as well, thanks. Randy Kryn 21:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Link posted. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)