Talk:Bill Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleBill 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
DateProcessResult
February 1, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 16, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 19, 2006Good article reassessmentKept
July 27, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 19, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 4, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
October 27, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
September 7, 2011Good article nomineeListed
June 1, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Split into new article Early life and career of Bill Clinton[edit]

The section "Early life and career" should be split into a new article titled Early life and career of Bill Clinton. It is notable and follows the pattern of other recent U.S. Presidents Early life of George W. Bush and Early life and career of Barack Obama.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Frank Sinatra and Marcus Aurelius are comparables, but if you're going to do the work, go for it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with "if you're going to do the work, go for it". The current section isn't long enough to deserve splitting as is, but he had a fairly interesting early life, probably well documented by biographers, so if you want to write a separate article with more content, go ahead. --GRuban (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Who benefits?? It's a lot of work to make sure all they key points are duplicated. Very few readers will read two articles on Clinton's life (then there's Hillary that makes it very complex) Rjensen (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Impeachment in the lead[edit]

Extremely hot (talk · contribs), in their first edit after an almost three year Wikibreak, inserted info about the impeachment in the first paragraph. When I reverted this, pointing out that the impeachment is already mentioned in the lead (which it is, in the third paragraph) and it should not be stated twice, the user put it back in. I am inviting this user to discuss any changes they propose here in this talk page section. As I see it, WP:UNDUE weight would be given to it if it was mentioned in the first paragraph. It certainly shouldn't be stated twice in the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

First, it's not mentioned twice in the lead paragraph. Now it's not mentioned at all in the lede paragraph, which is, in full, the following: "William Jefferson Clinton (né Blythe III; born August 19, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001. Prior to the presidency, he was the Governor of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981, and again from 1983 to 1992. A member of the Democratic Party, Clinton was ideologically a New Democrat and many of his policies reflected a centrist "Third Way" political philosophy."
Notice that I keep referring to the lede paragraph, which is all one sees on mobile, and you kepp saying, no, it's right there in the third paragraph. The third paragraph is not the first paragraph. Proposal: It goes in the first paragraph, and can be removed from the third?
Second, why is the infrequency of my editing relevant? (This was not my first edit after a break.)
Third, you reverted my edit, and then accused me of "edit warring" when I reverted your edit. Is that how this works? Why is my reversion edit warring, and your reversion is not? Because you edit more often? I was unaware of that rule. Or is the rule that the first person to say "edit warring" gets their way?
On the merits, the main way in which Bill Clinton is remembered or referred to in the media is for his impeachment. Mentioning it a single time in the lede paragraph would not be to give it undue weight. How about the proposal: Add impeachment to the first paragraph, and remove it from the third, which is so low as to appear to be trying to bury it for partisan reasons? Extremely hot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
It's in the lead. I see no good reason to put it in the first paragraph; it is not the most important part of his biography, and your "the main way in which Bill Clinton is remembered" is simply incorrect. Get out of your bubble more, since it appears you're trying to bring it up for partisan reasons. So no. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Assume good faith. This is a good faith edit, expressed neutrally. (Acqittal mentioned.)Extremely hot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh please. You're the first one telling someone they're "trying to bury it for partisan reasons". If you can't take it, don't dish it out. And please learn how to sign your name. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Your edit put it in the lead twice. Don't confuse "lead" and "lead paragraph". It belongs in the lead, of course. It doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

TBH, it's rather odd to not see his impeachment mentioned in the first paragraph. Clinton (after all) is only the second US president to be impeached since the first president took office, in 1789. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018[edit]

Bill Clinton did not graduate from Oxford, but left before taking his degree. This is discussed accurately in the main text, but "University College, Oxford (BPhil)" should be deleted from the info box under "Education". AMartinho3 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 13:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Shorten first term section?[edit]

I've noticed that the First Term section is incredibly long. Given that this information is in the Presidency of Bill Clinton article, I think some of it should be trimmed, if possible. The length of it goes way beyond the readability of it, and could prevent it from becoming a Featured article (should it ever be nominated). Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note about metoo reappraisal[edit]

There have been numerous articles about Clinton's loss of influence within the Democratic Party because of the reevaluation of his relationship with Lewinsky, and also because of the four allegations of assault, rape, or harassment against him.

Nobody is campaigning with him in the midterms, and it's because of metoo. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/us/politics/bill-clinton-elections-democrats.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-midterms.html https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/14/bill-clinton-metoo-backlash-campaign-407280

Is this really not worthy of mentioning? It strikes RS as significant, so why not mention it?

I am new here and am certainly open to hearing about the process for inserting the text, or editing the text. But no mention of the metoo reappraisal is strange in light of how it has marginalized Clinton's influence. He went from a top surrogate to someone nobody wants to be seen with. I am not a political hack. I do care about this metoo issue but I am willing to listen to the other side. I don't understand how the rules don't justify including this content. BugsyBeaver (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@BugsyBeaver: I disagree with the idea that Bill Clinton has been "ostracized". You can always count on certain members of the news media to write "concern" pieces about the Clintons - it's like a "go to" on a slow news day. But Bill Clinton is writing books, giving speeches in the US and internationally, going on a lecture tour with his wife, and engaging in other public activities. "Ostracism" hardly seems to fit here.
Billmckern (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
OK maybe ostracized was not a precise term. But why shouldn't we mention the fact that he's been shunned by all Democrats in 2018? That's significant part of his public image and has been covered in RS. We don't have to use the term ostracized to mention it. BugsyBeaver (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)