Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Bill Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A serious and dangerous heart surgery.

Was that a congenital disease or developed in the course of life?CeUmka (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2015

108.56.248.243 (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hippie

To JayJasper (talk).

The article of French version is considerably shorter than English version, but hippie is described. May I describe it? --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

To Calidum (talk).
The description of hippie is important in understanding the background of his repeated scandals. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The description of hippie is important in understanding the background of his repeated scandals Please don't confuse your original research with reliably-sourced facts. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Also you are edit-warring to add a completely made-up fact: He was a hippie until the early 1970s. using as source: "<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/where-and-how-was-the-bil_b_1929173.html Where and How Was the Bill and Hillary Clinton 1970s "Hippie" Photo Taken?]. Posted: 10/01/2012. Huffington Post." Nowhere in the source it is stated that He was a hippie until the early 1970s.. This is a false statement which you came up with. Do not reinsert this type of false statements to this article or in any other article because you risk temporary suspension of your editing privileges. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)

I'd like to know why the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is not mentioned in this article. It has been characterized as a "major welfare reform". President Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law in 1996. Earlier (in the 1992 presidency campaign) he has promised to "end welfare as we have come to know it", which was fulfilled by this act. It makes me wonder why the PRWORA is not mentioned because it led to a major change in society, and there is still debate in the media and the public about this act. (See here or here).--TheRandomIP (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2015

The second sentence of the second paragraph starts with "Aged 46" but should read "At age 46". "Aged" is used to refer to the age at which someone died. 47.32.12.94 (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

i question the statement

To stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide and later in the paragraph genocide statement is being refuted.. so maybe better to state 'alleged genocide' ? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Likelihood

What is the unlikely-part about "Clinton registered for the draft and received a high number (311), meaning that those whose birthdays had been drawn as numbers 1 to 310 would have to be drafted before him, which was unlikely."? Does the mere oddness of the number 311 make it unlikely.... Was it unlikely that Clinton registered for the draft.... Or was it unlikely that Clinton received a high number? No, those who had birthdays drawn as numbers 1 to 310 would be more likely to be drafted before him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. That was poorly worded and I have changed it. Vyselink (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Bill Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2016

Please change occupation of 'Lawyer' to 'Lawyer (disbarred)', as President Clinton has lost his license to practice law in the high court as a result of the Monica Lewinsky Scandal 2601:192:8200:C6DA:41CD:EF17:F57:B20A (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please establish precedence for this distinction. Is this fact noted in other articles about disbarred lawyers? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Clinton. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Clinton. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Footnote

Footnote 139 references "Bugga" and it should be "Bubba" Peter Shafran 23:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwslaw (talk • contribs)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Official Portrait

This is an inquiry, not just about Bill Clinton, but all former presidents. Why are the official portraits of some of them included in the article about them, but not all of them? Pres. Clinton's official portrait is absent, Gerald Ford's is included, just for example. Very few of them are included in the Wikimedia category, "Paintings in the White House," also, even though both Clinton's and Ford's hang in the Main Cross-hall of the White House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anewcharliega (talk • contribs) 01:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Monica Lewinsky

I noticed all references to Monica Lewinsky has been written factually, but in a method that gives the impression the affair was circumstantial. Could this be rephrased as to give the facts in chronological order, and an honest attempt to deliver the correct impression of the facts given? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.39.226 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2016

If I'm not mistaken, I do believe that between "who was" and "42nd President", there should be an article of the word "the," in the begining sentence of the article, "William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III, August 19, 1946) is an American politician who was 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001."

So that it says, "William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III, August 19, 1946) is an American politician who was the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001."

96.255.209.103 (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Done You're right, the article was missing. I added it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Rwanda Genocide

The Rwanda genocide is, for some reason, not referenced in the "Bill Clinton" page, despite reference to the Clinton page by the genocide page: "President Clinton has referred to the failure of the U.S. government to intervene in the genocide as one of his main foreign policy failings." United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power), addressed the issue as it relates the Clinton administration in detail in her 2001 article in The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/304571/).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.37.161 (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition to no mention of Rwanda, the failings of the rebuilding effort after the Haitian earthquake are also not mentioned. There is also no mention that Clinton was disbarred, according to this. I only noticed this because an external site deeplinks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Disbarment. After looking through the talk page archives, I am not willing to try to add any of this to the article, but people following the link from Slate might think there is some whitewashing here. ;) generic_hipster 23:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2016

Page cites no independent or unbiased sources for his name change from Blythe to Clinton ...

The phrase "formally adopted" by definition as applicable to an person/individual: official and legal declaration of parent/child relationship.

He has provided no proof of this legal procedure ... And, because, when he first became governor of Arkansas he had all school and court records concerning him sealed.

MotherHoose (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane2007 talk 23:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspension from the bar

A new edit just added the suspension of Bill Clinton from the bar at the very top, which does not fit the surrounding timeline. It should be added to the existing paragraph on Monica Lewinsky several paragraphs down. Hexahedra (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Clinton. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

Wasn't Bill Clinton president between 1992-2000 and not 1993-2001 as the wikipedia page states?

81.224.147.52 (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: No. He was elected in 1992, but took office in January of 1993. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
And he served until January 2001. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016

Could somebody add "|blank1 = Nickname" and "|data1 = Slick Willie, The Comeback Kid, The First Black President, and Bubba" into the infobox to show his nicknames?


96.255.203.83 (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit:
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

References

  1. ^ "'Slick Willie': Clinton's untold story - The Independent". The Independent. 2009-09-22. Retrieved 2016-09-30.
  2. ^ "Thinner and frailer, the Comeback Kid puts heart into Kerry's campaign - World news - The Guardian". The Guardian. 2004-10-26. Retrieved 2016-09-30.
  3. ^ "On the First Black President - The New Yorker". The New Yorker. 1998-10-05. Retrieved 2016-09-30.
  4. ^ "Bill Clinton's plane romp not his fault - Washington Times". The Washington Times. 2016-07-03. Retrieved 2016-09-30.
  5. ^ "Can Bill Clinton win back the bubba vote? - POLITICO". Politico. 2016-07-26. Retrieved 2016-09-30.
  6. ^ "Bill Clinton's D.N.C. Speech Reintroduced the "Real" Hillary Clinton to the Country - Vanity Fair". Vanity Fair. 2016-07-26. Retrieved 2016-09-30.
  7. ^ "Bill Clinton eyes new nickname if Hillary becomes president - MSNBC". MSNBC. 2015-01-28. Retrieved 2016-09-30.
  8. ^ "My Quest to Find Bill Clinton's Love Child - The Daily Beast". The Daily Beast. 2016-05-21. Retrieved 2016-09-30.
  9. ^ "Campaigning is taking a toll on Bill Clinton - New York Post". New York Post. 2016-04-17. Retrieved 2016-09-30.
Not done: 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Old Surname of William (Bill) Clinton

Here, in Israel, back in the mid-1970s, I worked for an American man from Arkansas (named John Anthony) who went to High School with William (Bill) Clinton. He told me that Bill's full original name was William (Bill) Black, but since he did not like his last name, he changed it to "Clinton." Can anyone verify this old surname, by - let's say - digging-up old class pictures from Bill's High School days?Davidbena (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

@Nableezy: Why did you revert? You didn't add anything in the summary. KamelTebaast 19:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism doesnt need an edit summary to revert. You included a claim that Bill Clinton did what the Nazis did without a single source that comes anywhere close to that. The reason why that was reverted should be fairly clear to anybody with even the slightest amount of good faith. nableezy - 19:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

For the mods

Hey,if nobody noticed yet,this page was vandalized by the no-life of GNAA.Can you do something about it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.236.79.253 (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Impeachment

It mentions that there was a basis for the impeachment "a denial that became the basis for an impeachment charge of perjury.[204]" But it never mentions that he was in fact impeached on December 19, 1998 on TWO charges. I rely on Wikipedia to be unbiased and report the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.73.2 (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2016

In the following section, the word Genocide should be removed, or at the very least the sentence should be re-written to make it clear that the term genocide was specifically used by the Clinton administration to describe the events in Kosovo, instead of it being written as it were a factual description of the events.

"To stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Albanians..." So that it says "To stop the ethnic cleansing of Albanians..."

Factually speaking, the claims of "Genocide" were never proven as evidenced by the subsequent references in the article pointing to the exaggerated number of victims, as well as the U.N. ruling which declared that there was no genocide. SamDerVees (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Correction on Ex-President Bill Clinton

It won't let me correct it for some reason, but it states that he was impeached. He was NEVER impeached. The Republicans tried to smear his name because they didn't want to a believe that a young democrat could have done what they hadn't been able to do in so many years. They ATTEMPTED to impeach him, in the end the country knew it was not for us to judge, but his wife. He did his job well and his personal life was not an impeachable offense. Emerald515ao (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please Disregard above I can't delete it. Thanks. 😔 Emerald515ao (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but he was impeached. Consult your constitution. Impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate where he was acquitted.--Wlmg (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

'Not done: Agreed with Wlmg. He was impeached under US Constitutional rules and then acquitted. This is reflected adequately in the text. LordHarris 08:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bill Clinton. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016

Under Early Political Career - Governor of Arkansas (1979–1981, 1983–1992) - Fourth Paragraph there is an unsubstantiated claim "...the Arkansas Education Standards Committee transformed Arkansas's education system from the worst in the United States to one of the best." I see three possible courses of action: (1) There should be a citation added backing up that it was changed into "one of the best"; (2) Add the "citation needed" template for the claim "one of the best"; or, (3) that claim should be deleted. In the case of deleting the claim, it could be reworded, as in a previous paragraph, that the Clintons or AK Educ Stds Comm improved the AK Educational system (the unproven claim is "one of the best").

38. a b Pendleton, Scott (July 21, 1992). "Governor Gets High Marks for Public Education Reforms". The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0721/21062.html

This Christian Science Monitor article referenced twice in the Bill Clinton Wikipedia page reflects positively on improvements, however, there is never a claim of it now being "one of the best" in the nation. There is no 1992 or 1993 ranking that AK was ranked in the top 10. For example, improving from 50th to 35th is amazing, but that does not it mean it is now "one of the best". In fact, the CSM article specifically states: "By many measures Arkansas still lags other states", a direct contradiction of the claim it was "one of the best" [in 1992 when Gov. Clinton left office in AK].

I recommend the claim is deleted as I have seen many sources that show AK is in the 30-40 range of rankings out of 50 states, certainly not "one of the best", despite good improvements from dead last:

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/01/us/1992-campaign-candidate-s-record-despite-improvements-schools-arkansas-are-still.html?pagewanted=all http://www.arkansasnews.com/article/20160106/NEWS/301069972 http://ualrpublicradio.org/post/arkansas-schools-rank-36th-nation-says-education-week#stream/0 http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/jan/11/arkansas-ranks-36th-receives-c-in-revis/ https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-best-schools/5335/ http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-failing-grade/article/1042827#! http://www.uaedreform.org/downloads/2012/03/analyzing-the-2011-naep-results-where-does-arkansas-stand-now.pdf http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2164 http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1992/02/05/20clintn.h11.html http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98018.pdf

Eric1974x (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Done I've removed the statement so that the sentence now reads simply, "..., the Arkansas Education Standards Committee transformed Arkansas's education system." "One of the best" is a rather vague description of the Arkansas' education reform that does not impart much verifiable information. The rest of the paragraph already explain what the reforms encompassed, which adequately illustrates the transformation of the educational system more than "one of the best" does. That being said, I would not be opposed to rephrasing the sentence to include some of the rankings you mentioned. Mz7 (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

How do I make an edit request for this page?

Who do I ask to change the description of Hilary "secretary of state, Senator and 2016 presidention nominee" to " ..., ..., and 2008 presidentional candidate as well as 2016 nominee"? It just feels more consistent to include ALL related credentials. Sethwudel (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

According to reputable sources, Bill Clinton did not leave his studies at Oxford because of being eligible for the draft. He left because Oxford asked him to leave.§§§§[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDD4:460:8D6D:7F8:FCD4:931D (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hillary's America: The secret history of the democratic party. chapter 8

Disbarred

Clinton was disbarred as per [1], [2], [3]. Quis separabit? 03:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought we could make edits here?

Am a novice, at wikipedia, but while reading bill clinton's wiki page, I noticed that their decsiption of Hilary Clinton as a secretary state and senator,and also the nominee for the 2016 election was kind of inconsistent, so I wanted to edit it and change it from"niominee in the 2016 election" to "nominee in the 2008 election as well as the 2016 election" I mean just the 2016 election is the one fresh on people mind's doesn't her being nominee for the 2008 election should be excluded from her credentials. Just seemed inconsistent not to mention it, given the context, so I was goinv to make a perfectly valid edit, bit it said I can't edit it to protect it fro vandalism. Well how does one edit the oage when they have a legit edit, then? Sethwudel (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

She was a candidate for the 2008 election but not a nominee. A nominee is the candidate who represents a political party.2601:640:4080:5960:209F:5B99:3593:6EA6 (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

Under External links and sub-title Official I want to add this link Archived Presidential White House Websites - William J. Clinton or these links Clinton White House version 1 , Clinton White House version 2 , Clinton White House version 3 , Clinton White House version 4 and Clinton White House version 5 becasue President Clinton was the first with a official White House web page, and all former presidents(Bush and Obama) after him as their archived White House page linked on their wiki page.

Maybe point somewhere that Clinton was the first president with offical White House web page? --Andreasfroby (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Andreasfroby (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Bill Clinton. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bill Clinton. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Clinton. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Clinton. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Clinton. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2017

Request is from LTA. IPs should be reported and blocked. --NeilN talk to me 05:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Change these source links back from:

To:

2A03:4A80:A:B:B:302A:7191:AEAE (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. We prefer HTTPS. Your change reverts to HTTP, so you're going to need consensus. Izno (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Invalid. Links. 2A03:4A80:A:B:B:7173:98A4:73A8 (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
☒N Not done and not likely to be done Wall Street Journal articles are behind a paywall. The non-secure versions of these links provide at most a one paragraph lede to the reader, which is not going to help a reader with verification of the claims any better than the version behind the secure link. Wikimedia uses https and links with https are preferred. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
They're currently DEAD LINKS that REDIRECT to LOG IN PAGES! Just HURRY UP and CHANGE them back! 109.26.26.170 (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
They are not dead links and re-directing them to log-in pages is the Journal's right as a commercial entity. Just because they are inconvenient is no reason to change them. The http versions do not supply significantly more information than the https versions and are also mostly paywalled. 18:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Just for documentary purposes: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bender the Bot 8 Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, they REDIRECT to log in pages now because of Bender the Bot adding the S in HTTP where it doesn't need to be, and NOW no one can read the articles themselves anymore. Why don't you change them back? 156.194.233.191 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Note: SHOUTING is unlikely to increase the likelihood of consensus. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I said they're broken links. Please, change them back. 1.215.232.90 (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for not shouting, and for asking nicely, but did you read what I wrote about seeking consensus before making another formal edit request? Reopening the request repeatedly is fast becoming disruptive and, considering that you're editing from various IPs, you're going to wind up getting this talk page protected as well, which would be to no one's benefit. RivertorchFIREWATER 02:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

National Governors Association chairmanship in infobox

Having the NGA governorship in infoboxes is bad policy as the position is rotational and practically meaningless. We might as well include the fact that he was Vice Chair the year prior. While it will be impossible to prevent its inclusion on every past chair's page, we should at least form a consensus to keep it off of this one.--Ministre d'État (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Secretary of state

@X4n6: I did review the guideline, and I reviewed the rfc on the talk page over there. When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g., King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king). The formal title is Secretary of State. That is the formal title, whether United States is before it or after it, or if it is by itself, the title is what it is. The state department uses Secretary of State [4]. The Constitution refers to the position as Secretary of State. United States Secretary of State uses it as a proper noun each time, the seal of the Secretary of State, and flag of the United States Secretary of State, in infobox. Secretary of State is a proper title, a secretary by itself would be a common noun. She served as the United State Secretary of State, she was Secretary of State of the United States, she served as a secretary in Barack Obama's cabinet. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC: Per WP:JOBTITLES: "When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g., King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)"

Verbatim - with example inserted: "When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g., Secretary of State of the United States of America; it is correct to write Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State of the United States of America but Hillary Clinton was the United States secretary of state)." X4n6 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@X4n6: As I just said I have read the guideline, and I even quoted it in my first reply. Why are you just rerepeating that guideline when I've already stated it? Either state your case or don't ask me to come to talk page if you don't want to even try and discuss it. You are completely ignoring what I wrote in specifying what the proper name in this situation actually is. You are treating Secretary of State of the United States of America as the formal title, when the formal title is Secretary of State. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:09, July 28, 2017 (UTC)
@WikiVirusC: I said I would be happy to discuss/explain it to you and I have. Your position that "Secretary of State" is a formal title, qualifying under the guideline: is not only factually wrong, but it is also blatantly illogical. How would you presume to differentiate between the federal "secretary of state" and other governments' secretaries of state without including the country's name? Not to mention the 50 state "secretaries of state?" According to your one-title-fits-all explanation, they're all apparently supposed to just go by "Secretary of State" and people are just supposed to guess where they represent? "Secretary of State" is no more a formal title than is "King" or "President." You are obviously ignoring the three separate and specific terms the guideline requires for caps: correct formal title. Not proximal title, partial title, correct title or even formal title. But "correct." "formal." "title." The guideline is both clear - and specific.
Finally, I'll also refer you to MOS:CAPS. The very first sentences of which are: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, or for the first word of a sentence." X4n6 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@X4n6: It's illogical how? You differentiate it by saying the country when needed. I am not even referring to every instance of Secretary of State I am only for this one specific title. Yes there are 50(give or take) state secretaries of state, but there is only one head of the State Department which this specific title refers to. The "correct." "formal." "title." as you put, is as I said:Secretary of State. I already directed you to the way it is used by the State Department itself, and the Constitution when it mentions the position, where you are sourcing your correct formal title. I am not using a partial title, you are claiming a differential version of the title and claiming that is the proper way. The constitution uses "President of the United States", that is the proper way, it uses "Secretary of State", not "Secretary of State of the United States", it is clearly specific. How are you going to define what the correct formal title is on your own?
I never said one title fits all, and I don't know where you got that from. Quote the first sentences of MOS:CAPS, even if you don't include the next statement doesn't mean that it still makes it clears there are exceptions. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not a debate. Besides, if it were, you'd lose. You're just repeating the same failed arguments. The last time I checked, "U.S." was an abbreviation, not an actual country. And the "Constitution," if you've ever actually read the manuscript, capitalizes words that are never capitalized today. So all these tangential arguments are irrelevant. You asked for a reason for my edit and I gave one. You've asked for a discussion & explanation of the guideline(s), which I also gave - at length. The guideline requires nothing less than the correct formal title. Period. I also provided an exact side-by-side example of the guideline and you still have nothing to say to it. Of course, you can't. It was identical. So that's it - whether you like it or not. Everything else is just WP:IDHT. So we're done. X4n6 (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Clearly it isn't a debate, you don't want to address the primary issue I brought up . I do not have any clue why you are bringing up US as an abbreviation. I gave zero references to capitalization of words in Constitution, I gave reference to the title they use. I didn't once ask for an explanation of the guidelines, I understand them. I brought up my point of the actual title, and you ignored it. Yes you gave side by side examples but still using your own definition of the proper title, the guideline itself was not the issue I brought up. I cleary shouldn't have bothered in first place, since from your first response you didn't even try to discuss, you just want reiterate your claim of you being right and I'm wrong, and I lose no matter what, which is what you have used as your final answer. That as I said before is in zero way a discussion. The fact that you still believe I ever had an issue with the guideline when every one of my responses was specifically about the title "Secretary of State" proves that you aren't even here to discuss this. WikiVirusC(talk) 01:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2017

The caption of the photo in the 2016 presidential race makes no sense. Bill was not "endorsing" Hillary for president in October 2016 when the photo was taken, that happened the instant she announced. He was campaigning at an election rally for her and that is what the caption should say. 69.112.85.16 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 01:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Clinton. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Clinton. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Clinton. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Disbarred

I didn't read anything about Clinton being disbarred (maybe I missed it.) One would think it would be as important as touting his legal career and equally relevant. Syhy71 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

According to Snopes, he resigned. link ValarianB (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William Clinton (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Party affiliation of James Comey

I'm not comfortable with the "then" in front of "Republican" James Comey's name in the section "Pardons and commutations". Whether technically true or not, and whether intentional or not, it can infer to readers that somewhere along his public service career he changed his personal parties affiliation. This is an especially sore subject with some regarding the fact he didn't recommend charges against Hillary Clinton. James Comey was a Republican his entire life until days after he was fired by Trump, and hen he simply said he was no longer party affiliated, not even calling himself an Idependent.

It infers, intentional or not, that somewhere between the time Comey cleared Bill Clinton of wrongdoing regarding the pardons, that he became a Democrat. It's unfair to him personally and inaccurate historically. I think "Republican James Comey" is correct. He was a lifelong Republican and there is no credible evidence he favored either party in his FBI career. Personally, I think it's important to understand he was a Republican, but I'd settle in this case to remove party altogether. He was appointed by Obama because he was a Republican to avoid even the appearance of stacking the Justice Department and Comey had previously "stressed that the Justice Department had to be perceived as nonpartisan and nonpolitical to function." Jackhammer111 (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

lack of information, vague identification

this article lacks public information and proof of, an abundance of mal-practice, sexual assault, and deception. Bill Clinton is a perfect example of the ongoing ability to protect negative and consequential individuals from preliminary justice by higher levels of government.

Any submission of information regarding positive and constitutional acts and opinions of Bill Clinton need to be balance with the abundance of factual and obvious informations available identifying his true person and negative effect on the deceived general public. PLEASE CORRECT THIS PAGE, AS IT LACKS CRUCIAL INFORMATION TOWARDS THE SUBJECT. Markw10 (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Split into new article Early life and career of Bill Clinton

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018

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)

Impeachment in the lead

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)

Note about metoo reappraisal

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)

Shorten first term section?

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)

I don’t know what the situation with that section was when you wrote your commentin October, but right now(December 29,2018)I don’t see a word in it discussing the year 1995 of Clinton’s presidency. Needs to be in there.Rich (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Make it obvious who is subject of the sentences in the part "Second term". Now it almost reads like it was Hillary who negotiated the Balanced Budget Act

Make it obvious who is subject of the sentences in the part "Second term". Now it almost reads like it was Hillary who negotiated the Balanced Budget Act

He negotiated the -> Bill Clinton negotiated the
In 1999 Clinton signed -> In 1999 he signed

In other words, change:

That year, Hillary Clinton shepherded through Congress the Adoption and Safe Families Act and two years later she succeeded in helping pass the Foster Care Independence Act. He negotiated the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 by the Republican Congress. In October 1997, he announced he was getting hearing aids, due to hearing loss attributed to his age, and his time spent as a musician in his youth.[1] In 1999 Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act also known as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which repealed the part of the Glass–Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933.[2]

To:

That year, Hillary Clinton shepherded through Congress the Adoption and Safe Families Act and two years later she succeeded in helping pass the Foster Care Independence Act. Bill Clinton negotiated the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 by the Republican Congress. In October 1997, he announced he was getting hearing aids, due to hearing loss attributed to his age, and his time spent as a musician in his youth.[3] In 1999 he signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act also known as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which repealed the part of the Glass–Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933.[4] Bnilsson (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Hiàn (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Shogren, Elizabeth (October 4, 1997). "Clinton to Get Hearing Aids for Both Ears". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
  2. ^ "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999". Federal Reserve History. Retrieved September 12, 2015.
  3. ^ Shogren, Elizabeth (October 4, 1997). "Clinton to Get Hearing Aids for Both Ears". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
  4. ^ "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999". Federal Reserve History. Retrieved September 12, 2015.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2019

Please will you change the word 'accident' to read road traffic collision in the section referring to Clinton Senior death as this is the most accurate term as opposed to the archaic and inaccurate term accident, Templeronan (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sergeant Angle, is that you? But seriously,  Not done, because for better or worse, "accident" is a common term, and it's the one that the source uses. It's not really Wikipedia's place to enforce changes (even good ones) in the language. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Military Service post Vietnam War era?

I recall reading a London "Times" report of one of Clinton's first Presidential election campaign, where when asked about his understanding of military affairs he mentioned inter alia he was "major of a national guard unit" - which if true would make him the first POTUS to have been a US National Guard officer since Truman. Is it supported in any published biography or documented detail?Cloptonson (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2019

In 1964 and 1965, Clinton won elections for class president.[16] From 1964 to 1967, he was an intern and then a clerk in the office of Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright.[3] While in college, he became a brother of Alpha Phi Omega National Service Fraternity. Alpha Phi Omega later became a National Fraternity that was co-ed in 1976 [17] Bill Clinton was also elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Clinton was also a member of the Order of DeMolay,[18] a youth group affiliated with Freemasonry, but he never became a Freemason. He is a member of Kappa Kappa Psi honorary band fraternity.[19] JesseBridges (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done You just copied the text from Georgetown University section. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 11:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


Citation 47 is unreliable

Citation 47 references the Christian Science Monitor, a reporting source paid for by the First Church of Christ. A more reliable source for the same information would be https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/exhibits/show/education-reform/arkansas-achievements as this is a top-level domain traditionally used by nonprofits, and in this case, the Clinton Presidential Library and Museum. If not this site, then at least both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8C40:64B0:7062:5D57:9CCD:33D0 (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor is a reliable news organization, and has been for decades.148.75.126.156 (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Move impeachment to first or second paragraph

The impeachment of President Clinton, and his status as one of only two presidents to be impeached, should be mentioned in the first paragraph, or at least the second. Hiding it after mention of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 seems silly, no?

I moved the reference to the impeachment to the 2nd paragraph. An editor then reverted my edit and then threatened to block me. I noted that the Andrew Johnson impeachment is in the first paragraph of his bio, and the editor claimed that this was "false equivalency." Okay, then here we are on the talk page.

Is there any doubt that the impeachment of President Clinton is the first most notable element of his presidency? One of only two presidents (well, so far) to be impeached. Certainly more notable than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which at this point is also mentioned higher in the bio. Is this in doubt except among partisans?

From The Washington Post's columnist Max Boot, discussing the possible impeachment of Donald Trump: "Trump has no desire to go down in history as only the third president in 230 years to be impeached. This will leave an indelible stain on his presidency that no amount of spin can wash off. Impeachment will be in the first paragraph of his obituary, just as it is now in the first paragraph of Bill Clinton’s Encyclopaedia Britannica entry."

For comparison, here is the first paragraph of the Encyclopedia Brittanica on President Clinton: "Bill Clinton, original name William Jefferson Blythe III, (born August 19, 1946, Hope, Arkansas, U.S.), 42nd president of the United States (1993–2001), who oversaw the country’s longest peacetime economic expansion. In 1998 he became the second U.S. president to be impeached; he was acquitted by the Senate in 1999."

And here is the first paragraph of Wikipedia: "William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; 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, and the attorney general of Arkansas from 1977 to 1979. A member of the Democratic Party, Clinton was ideologically a New Democrat, and many of his policies reflected a centrist "Third Way" political philosophy."Pop quizzed (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I propose that we move impeachment into the second paragraph, as it is the most notable feature of the Clinton presidency. Only a BLP concern keeps it, arguably, from being in the first paragraph. Simply move up the text on impeachment, which now is buried in the third paragraph between the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the budget surplus.
Proposed text of the second paragraph:
In 1998, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury and obstruction of justice following allegations that he committed perjury and obstructed justice to conceal an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a 22-year old White House Intern. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in 1999 and completed his term in office. He is only the second U.S. president—following Andrew Johnson 131 years earlier—to ever be impeached.
The current second paragraph would move down to the third position.Pop quizzed (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
This change has been made. Onward.Pop quizzed (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2019

The article has been vandalised and a line added that is not relevant to the article. Referring to edit made 10:52, 27 December 2019‎ in this sentence; In addition, he secured the release of two American journalists imprisoned by North Korea, visiting the capital Pyongyang in 2009 and negotiating their release with then-North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and epstein didn't kill himself.

It should be reverted back to; In addition, he secured the release of two American journalists imprisoned by North Korea, visiting the capital Pyongyang in 2009 and negotiating their release with then-North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Gamlik (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've dealt with both the edit and its perpetrator. -- Hoary (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Gubernatorial Results Map

I had previously added a particular results map b/c it was the future President's first successful election to an executive position (i.e. governor, president, mayor, etc.). Results maps are significant (especially for presidents or candidates) because it shows how well he/she performed in their first successful bid for higher office. In this case this election was fourteen years prior to Clinton seeking the presidency in 1992. I'm considering including that particular image back into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribatorian (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Arkansas was overwhelmingly Democratic at the state level during this time, so it's no surprise to see Bill Clinton easily win the 1978 election as a Democrat. Moreover, that election itself has no significance. Adding the map to his governorship section just creates clutter. --Wow (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

One of two impeached Presidents, not three

End of first paragraph, says Bill Clinton is one of three impeached presidents, the third being Donald Trump. Donald Trump has not yet been impeached. Antibob100 (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Impeachment: "Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official." — IVORK Talk 02:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Charges HAVE NOT YET BEEN LEVELED aganst Mr Trump. Trump has not yet been impeached. The full house would need to vote on articles of impeachment. The vote on 2019-10-31 was on an investigation only. Do not edit the article if you do not know what you are talking about. Montestruc (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Trump has since been impeached. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

"Harry Morris Warner" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Harry Morris Warner. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"Bill Blythe IV" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Bill Blythe IV should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Bill Blythe IV until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Hog Farm (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Johanngretar15 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC) it says that Clinton was the First Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt which is false lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) was the last Democratic person to be elected POTUS. Even if it wasn’t LBJ Kennedy and Truman were both democrats.

 Not done The request misreads the entire sentence which qualifies: "In 1996, Clinton became the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to be elected to a second full term." This is factually accurate. BusterD (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Unbiased?

The article does mention some of the negatives, but overall it is so full of praise that it does not appear to have a “neutral point of view.”

NEEDS editing - Hardly unbiased - among other things, Bill Clinton was disbarred and this is not mentioned, BUT VERY 

SIGNIFICANT! (2601:646:C102:B630:F198:CECB:5193:C671 (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC))

Very biased article, plainly authored by political operatives.

There is no mention of major events like the Waco siege... or anything else that might tarnish an election brochure. This is a biography that reads like a North Korean biography of Kim Jong Un — Preceding unsigned comment added by E caroline (talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and make or propose changes. The article is here for you to edit. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 17:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a biography of Bill Clinton the man, it is not an article that has the room to cover every facet of his presidency, that is why we have sub-articles and other places to gather all the information. The Waco siege, for example, is mentioned at Timeline of the Bill Clinton presidency (1993). ValarianB (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Massage Pictures Released

Trolling. ValarianB (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Bill Clinton page is locked, which is understandable, however only biased contributors are allowed to edit. In mid August, pictures were released of Bill Clinton on a flight with Jeffrey Epstein, and one in particular shows Clinton receiving a massage from a 22 year old girl. Also, after stringent denials of ever having gone on a flight on Epstein's plane, flight logs have shown his name in the logs 26 times. Finally, witnesses have claimed to have seen Bill Clinton on Epstein's private island at least once.

Are these things ever going to be added to this page? Would they be added to Donald Trump's page if he had the same pictures, behavior or accusations released about him? Things like this are precisely why Wikipedia is not allowed to be used as a citation source for collegiate level, or even high school papers. Their credibility is abysmal due to overwhelming bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16A2:8E4D:8900:6048:8036:B023:73A (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Moscow Peace Conference

There are several reports that Bill Clinton went to a Moscow Peace Conference in January 1970 then went on a 40-day train trip behind the Iron Curtain and stayed with the founders of the Czech Communist Party.

If true it was likely part of his post graduate study, there is no record of his having been active on their behalf. However, this information should be verified and properly sourced, so as to give a complete picture. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:9486:636D:EEEC:6296 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that there was anything nefarious about Clinton's trip was a middling conspiracy theory pushed largely by Bob Dornan. Young men in the 70s disillusioned with America's war stance may indeed speak to communists abroad. It isn't, and wasn't, shocking or noteworthy. ValarianB (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning Hillary Campaigns in Lead

Should it be (briefly) mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead that he campaigned for both of Hillary's presidential campaigns? That seems like a major and notable enough part of his post-presidency to be mentioned I think. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Portal at the bottom links

I'm not sure if this is the page where I should put this, but in the Bill Clinton portal at the bottom of pages about him, in the family section-- the link for Charlotte Mesvinsky, his granddaughter, goes straight to Chelsea Clinton. I don't see why the granddaughter needs her own wikipedia page, but shouldn't the link go to the family subheading on Chelsea Clinton's page? That's the only place on the page where the grandchildren are mentioned (the other two are redlinked for some reason though.) Nibby the Bird (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"Longest economic expansion in history"

the 2009-2020 expansion was longer than the 1991-2001 one so maybe change that?217.209.1.128 (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 election

can't edit yet but someone should put that he was an elector again in 2020 Contrainer (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

No “Personal Life” Section?

Is there a reason for there being no personal life section? It seems to me that information is missing, or maybe it has been moved to a separate article entirely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedal45 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Daedal45, in a biography such as this one, a dedicated "personal life" section towards the end of the article doesn't make sense. The information is spread out throughout the article. Hillary is introduced to the narrative in the appropriate section, "Law school". Everything else that would be "personal life" is included chronologically in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That is pretty inconvenient to readers who want to learn about just his personal life.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedal45 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Clinton/Archive_13&oldid=1136563892"