Talk:The Secret Life of Bill Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I'm not really sure whether this book is to be classed as a novel, non fiction, biography, or political. Some sources refer to it as a novel. Please add the correct cats, change any text in the article as necessary, and change the project banner above if it is the wrong one. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the way it's being cataloged in 3 different library systems and then I checked on WorldCat. In all cases it was cataloged as non-fiction, and in most cases as biography. I'm going to call it biography and make the changes you have listed. Susfele (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Secret Life of 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 05:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


I am left with the feeling that the authors of this wiki have never read the book -- I notice that the only description comes from a critic. I have only read some excerpts myself (the extensive excerpts on the Oklahoma City bombing at and its four linked webpages) so I'm not about to comment anywhere but the Talk pages.

But I found the work I did read to be well-written, unusually balanced (contrast this wiki) and even compelling. For example, I cringed when I saw that one webpage addressed the claim that there was a bomb disposal crew on site, but Evans-Prichard lays out his evidence without overreaching.
As for balance, consider the following excerpt: "[M]ost serious of all, the judge refused to allow the testimony of an ATF informant with very relevant information indicating that the Oklahoma bombing was a broad conspiracy involving several members of the neo-Nazi movement in Oklahoma, an assertion that the U. S. government had gone to great lengths to repress. Whether or not Judge Richard Matsch was acting in tacit concert with the Justice Department is a matter that will demand hard scrutiny by historians. Doubtless Judge Matsch is sure that he can justify his decision on technical grounds. No judge likes to commit reversible error. But even if he can do so, I still believe that he betrayed his mission as a U. S. federal judge."
Finally, some of his "wilder claims" may be questions or at most suggestions, rather than outright claims, and even as claims, might not be as "wild" as critics characterize them. For instance, his claim (if it is one) of a sting gone wrong in the Oklahoma City bombing just brought to mind the Air India bombing that killed 329 people, 268 of them Canadians; as a Canadian, I'm keenly aware that intelligence and law enforcement agencies can misjudge when to move in on a suspect.
The Telegraph is to the Guaridan as the Wall Street Journal is to the New York Times, and Evans-Prichard is one of its lead writers. Does that sound like an author who's work would earn a sneering dismissal? I hope someone who's read the book reviews it/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor alacarte (talkcontribs) 21:23, September 13, 2017 (UTC)

Please remember that newer talk page posts go at the bottom of the page, not the top. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)