Talk:Bill Clinton: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:00, 29 August 2004

Latest revision as of 02:27, 23 August 2025

Line 1:

{{Skip to bottom}}

== Article opening statement and Info Box ==

{{Skip to talk}}

Party Affiliation does not belong in the introductory area unless it is of historic importance. Instead, it is given in the fact box at the right. This stylistic convention is followed on all Wikipedia articles on Presidents.

{{Talk header}}

{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=ap|1RR=yes}}

{{Article history

|action1=PR|action1date=2:48, 01 February 2006|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive1|action1result=reviewed|action1oldid=37613993

|action2=GAN|action2date=19:44, 16 June 2006|action2result=listed|action2oldid=58992314

|action3=FAC|action3date=19:12, 8 October 2006|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bill Clinton/archive1|action3result=not promoted|action3oldid=79934323

|action4=GAR|action4date=17:22, 19 May 2006|action4link=Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 19#Bill Clinton|action4result=keep|action4oldid=130471667

|action5=PR|action5date=12:37, 27 July 2007|action5link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive2|action5result=reviewed|action5oldid=147321605

|action6=GAR|action6date=02:45, 19 December 2008|action6link=Talk:Bill Clinton/GA1|action6result=delisted|action6oldid=258977349

|action7=PR|action7date=09:59, 4 October 2009|action7link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive3|action7result=reviewed|action7oldid=317673108

|action8=PR|action8date=20:27, 27 October 2010|action8link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive4|action8result=reviewed|action8oldid=393128324

|action9=GAC|action9date=18:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)|action9link=Talk:Bill Clinton/GA2|action9result=listed|action9oldid=448974813

|action10=PR|action10date= June 2013|action10link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive5|action10result=reviewed|action10oldid=

|topic=Politics and government

|currentstatus=GA

|otd1date=2021-08-19|otd1oldid=1039471026

The reason the box is there is to give facts like that; the intro should not be duplicating the box material, it should be complimenting it, by stating in words what is historic about the President. For some Presidents, like Lincoln, party affiliation is historic; he was the first Republican President, and it is rightfully noted in the intro. For Clinton, there is nothing historic of note in mentioning his party, hence it does not belong in the intro. There is a scheme here to the display, and it should be uniform. Party information is important, and is easily found in the box, that's what its for. [[User:ChessPlayer|ChessPlayer]] 05:43, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

}}

------

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|listas=Clinton, Bill|1=

How do we fit in the Clinton policy of using executive branch regulations and lawsuits to punish organizations/companies that he did not like? (and possibly to drive them out of business)

{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=low|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=mid}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|US-Government=yes|US-Government-importance=mid|US-governors=yes|US-governors-importance=low|US-history=yes|US-history-importance=mid|US-military=yes|US-presidential-elections=yes|US-presidential-elections-importance=low|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=mid|Arkansas=yes|Arkansas-importance=high}}

{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid|American=yes|American-importance=top}}

{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Biography=yes|African=yes|Middle-Eastern=yes|US=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}}

{{WikiProject International relations|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject University of Oxford|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=low}}

}}

{{Press

|author=Meyers, Peter

|title=Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You

|org=''[[The New York Times]]''

|date=September 20, 2001

|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/fact-driven-collegial-this-site-wants-you.html

|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20240812093638/https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/fact-driven-collegial-this-site-wants-you.html

|archivedate=August 12, 2024

|urlstatus=live

|author2 =

He did this to:

|title2 = Jeffrey Epstein Bill Clinton Wikipedia Page Twitter Controversy

* the handgun industry

|date2 = August 12, 2024

* Microsoft (Al Gore went there to raise funds in 1996 but did not collect any).

|org2 = HOLR

|url2 = https://holrmagazine.com/jeffrey-epstein-bill-clinton-wikipedia-page-twitter-controversy/

|lang2 =

|quote2 =

|archiveurl2 =

|archivedate2 = <!-- do not wikilink -->

|accessdate2 = August 17, 2024

|author3 = [[On the Media]]

Obvious questions:

|title3 = Donald Trump is Rewriting the Past. Plus, the Christian Groups Vying for Political Power

* Were the lawsuits/legal actions designed to force companies to pay 'protection money' to Democrat campaign organizations?

|date3 = August 12, 2024

* Were the lawsuits/legal actions designed to force companies to not contest a union action?

|org3 =[[WNYC Studios]]

|url3 = https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/articles/donald-trump-is-rewriting-the-past-plus-the-christian-groups-vying-for-political-power

|lang3 =

|quote3 =

|archiveurl3 =

|archivedate3 = <!-- do not wikilink -->

|accessdate3 = February 14, 2025

}}

{{External peer review

|org=The Denver Post

|date=April 30, 2007

|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070522051156/http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_5786064

|comment=Further information at [[Wikipedia:External peer review/Denver Post]]

}}

{{Section sizes}}

{{Top 25 report|Jul 24 2016 (7th)|Oct 9 2016 (9th)|Nov 6 2016 (24th)|Aug 18 2024 (22nd)}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|algo=old(60d)

|archive=Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive %(counter)d

|counter=14

|maxarchivesize=100K

|archiveheader{{Automatic archive navigator}}|minthreadsleft=4

}}

{{Tmbox

|image=[[File:Stop hand nuvola orange.svg|48px|link=]]

|text='''Want to add new information about Bill Clinton?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:

{{div col}}

*[[Post-presidency of Bill Clinton]]

{{div col end}}

... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t|Bill Clinton}} and {{t|Bill Clinton series}}. Thanks!

}}

__TOC__

''Oh, come on. I don't suppose we'd be willing to accept the canonical reasons for actions against such companies - namely "guns kill people" and "Microsoft is a monopoly"? You may not agree with either of those statements, but I don't see any reason to look for hidden motives here - these are precisely the sort of things democrats have a reputation of disagreeing with, so it's no surprise they took action against them.''

== Someone needs to re-add the relations with Jeffery Epstein section ==

What is questionable is whether or not the executive branch took legal action that could not be won just to bankrupt the target industry/company.

I recovered parts of it but it’s slightly scrambled and needs to be fixed.

Unions do this to non-union shops. see [[:Salting|Salting]]

----

In the 1992 election, the other high-profile candidates were incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] ([[:Republican|Republican]]) and [[:Ross Perot|Ross Perot]] ([[:Reform|Reform]]). In 1996 it was [[:Bob Dole|Bob Dole]] ([[:Republican|Republican]]) and again [[:Ross Perot|Ross Perot]] ([[:Reform|Reform]]).

In the early 2000s, Clinton took flights on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet in connection with Clinton Foundation work |3833| According to Epstein's attorney Gerald B Letcount, Epstein was "part of the original group that conceived of the Clinton Gional Initiative*|3e5) In 2002, a spokesperson for Clintan praised Epstein as 'a committed philanthropist" with "insights and generosity"* While Clinton was president Epstein visited the White House at least 17 times. P/Ja) Years later, Epstein was convicted on sex trafficking charges. Clinton's office refused a stutement in 2019 saying.

:Maybe there should be a page for each election, e.g. us/Election1992, us/Election1994, etc.

*President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York. In 2002 and 2003, President Clinton took four trips on Jeftrey Epstein’s airplane: one to Europe, one to Asia, and two to Africa, which included stops in connection with the work of the Cinton Foundation. Staff, supporters of the Foundation, and his Secret Service detail traveled on evory leg of every trip. […] Has not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade.

[[Special:Contributions/98.117.183.124|98.117.183.124]] ([[User talk:98.117.183.124|talk]]) 02:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:Yes this needs to be re added. Not sure why it was removed as its all cited [[Special:Contributions/86.147.54.20|86.147.54.20]] ([[User talk:86.147.54.20|talk]]) 22:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::''I agree, but think harder about what to call the pages. See [[:naming conventions|naming conventions]]. --LS''

:It was not removed, it was moved to [[Post-presidency_of_Bill_Clinton#Relationship_with_Jeffrey_Epstein|Post-presidency of Bill Clinton]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1236064272 as explained] by the person who did it [[User:Archimedes5000|Archimedes5000]] ([[User talk:Archimedes5000|talk]]) 18:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::It should be on both [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C4A:42F0:1930:E135:B57B:D3F2:D09D|2600:6C4A:42F0:1930:E135:B57B:D3F2:D09D]] ([[User talk:2600:6C4A:42F0:1930:E135:B57B:D3F2:D09D|talk]]) 13:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Why? &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 15:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I appreciate you suggesting this revision. As for Wyatt was removed. You said you weren’t sure. It’s because of bias on Wikipedia. That’s why, and one of the editors here who is questioning your suggestion, seems to exist only for for the sake of protecting the left. It would be nice if Wikipedia could be more objective and less political, but I think that’s not possible. [[Special:Contributions/2605:BA00:A118:C70:B8C7:CB2F:EBDA:56F4|2605:BA00:A118:C70:B8C7:CB2F:EBDA:56F4]] ([[User talk:2605:BA00:A118:C70:B8C7:CB2F:EBDA:56F4|talk]]) 06:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There should be a note linking to it as most people will only look at the main article and not go out of their way to try and find a "post presidentcy" one. Also their relationship was existed during the presidency and therefore should just be attached to the man and not sectioned off based on a position. This seems like a weird editing choice because if you look at band members pages they have pre/ post information about them in each band that they have been in. These wiki should be about the topic they are on... the person or the main subject and if it was too long that it needed to be added to another page then fine, however there should be a disclaimer or links to any and all additional content for the individual so information is easy accessible to all. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and just plain organized information supplied to internet users. This is what encyclopedias have always been, however rather than waiting a year for new updates we just have to wait as long as it takes someone to type it up and be approved. I only ask that all articles be more transparent and not dodgy because after the dust settles on all of this I think the only thing that matters is that feature generations have full and clear access to their information. [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:1282:2100:A242:D7A6:4D71:5A37|2600:8800:1282:2100:A242:D7A6:4D71:5A37]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:1282:2100:A242:D7A6:4D71:5A37|talk]]) 15:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure why a factual statement about Jeffrey Epstein's visits to the White House during Clinton's presidency belongs on a webpage about events post-presidency. Seems like it should be restored. [[Special:Contributions/216.211.247.181|216.211.247.181]] ([[User talk:216.211.247.181|talk]]) 20:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

:There’s so much stuff going back decades that needs to be in there. It is whitewashing history and is clear bias for the establishment for it to be erased as such.

:I’m not American, and I have donated to Wikipedia several times. This needs putting back. [[Special:Contributions/94.196.16.82|94.196.16.82]] ([[User talk:94.196.16.82|talk]]) 18:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

::please keep your money if you're outraged by the notion of engaging with our content guidelines, such as avoiding committing libel against [[WP:BLP|living persons]] or [[WP:undue|undue]] emphasis on the most scandalous elements of a biography. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 18:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

:::as you literally said yourself, maybe stay silent unless spoken to? [[User:Montefjanton|Montefjanton]] ([[User talk:Montefjanton|talk]]) 18:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Given every single comment you've written so far (e.g. {{diffs|1303392249}}) it seems a waste of time to clarify what I meant either on my userpage or above, as you've shown no sign you'd care. I'll just re-emphasize you should avoid disrupting these discussions if you don't care about site policy. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 01:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::That is the hardest cope I've seen all year. [[User:Montefjanton|Montefjanton]] ([[User talk:Montefjanton|talk]]) 14:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

:::Libel requires not only that a statement be false, but also that the person making it knew it was false. Bill Clinton’s documented association with Jeffrey Epstein is a matter of public record. Erasing or hiding that fact isn't just misleading — it’s a form of historical revisionism and political corruption. [[Special:Contributions/50.54.213.63|50.54.213.63]] ([[User talk:50.54.213.63|talk]]) 09:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that it should be mentioned, but only with one or two sentences. It has a dedicated article, it is clearly an important topic. I'm not familiar enough with the situation, but I'm sure that someone who is could write a good summary in three sentences or less. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 17:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

== Health sections ==

:Also, Perot was certainly "high-profile" in 1992, but in the 1996 election, he was no more so than Ralph Nader (Green), and received fewer votes and less press coverage. --LDC

Why are there two separate sections for his health (one in Personal Life and one in Post-presidential health concerns)? I don't see much of a distinction between them and I think they should be merged. Can I have access to this article to change it? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:D8E9:6FF4:DCCD:4191|2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:D8E9:6FF4:DCCD:4191]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:D8E9:6FF4:DCCD:4191|talk]]) 19:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

----

Statements like "the most controversial [[:Presidential Pardon|Presidential Pardon]] in US history" should probably be left till more than 4 weeks after the event. -- [[:Gareth Owen|Gareth Owen]]

::''I totally agree! -- LS''

== New Infobox image ==

:And it can't ever be true anyway; Ford's pardon of Nixon caused much more of a stir. And "...one of the most popular presidents in history..."? Please. I don't think his approval polls ever got much above 70%. That's not something that's really possible to ever quantify, but certainly he was never anywhere near FDR or JFK on that scale. You young folks just don't remember that far back. :) --LDC

The current official portrait lead image is over 30 years old and not at all representative of the subject as they currently exist. As Bill Clinton is still alive and still at least somewhat active, he should have a lead image that is more representative of his current appearance. I suggest this one from 2015 but please feel free to suggest other options. [[File:Bill Clinton (2015).jpg|thumb|Bill Clinton (2015)]] [[User:Lord Beesus|Lord Beesus]] ([[User talk:Lord Beesus|talk]]) 05:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

----

::''The following information should be massively and fairly rewikified and refactored and then reinjected into the main page.''

:The tradition for US presidents and most politicians on Wikipedia is to include the subject's official portrait. This is because it portrays the subject in the thing they were known for. That's why [[Barack Obama]] is the same as it was since 2012. [[User:AsaQuathern|AsaQuathern]] ([[User talk:AsaQuathern|talk]]) 23:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

RE: Controversial Pardon. Excuse me for being an ignorant European, but what exactly happened?? -- WojPob

::I guess if he did something that would make himself back into the spotlight and someone of great interest (other than DNC speeches) then we may have to change it. [[User:AsaQuathern|AsaQuathern]] ([[User talk:AsaQuathern|talk]]) 00:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

== Requesting deletion of Epstein section ==

The PresidentOfTheUnitedStates has the power, under the UnitedStatesConstitution, to pardon people for crimes committed.

I request that the section on Clinton's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein be removed from the article entirely.

:...or even crimes they haven't committed! --LDC

There is no evidence that Clinton was involved in any criminal activities with Epstein, meaning that the entire section is casting guilt by association on him. Him having been friends with Epstein is otherwise of no encyclopaedic value. It is also given undue weight in the article compared to everything else Clinton has done. [[User:TKSnaevarr|TKSnaevarr]] ([[User talk:TKSnaevarr|talk]]) 05:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Clinton critics argue that Clinton's many last-minute pardons were more political than those of the past, and in some cases are baffling except in light of large donations to Clinton campaigns.

:Fully agree. Also worth noting that [[Donald Trump]]'s article doesn't have a guilt by association section as he also was involved in any criminal activities. But since Clinton wasn't either, the section should be removed from this article too. --[[Special:Contributions/209.93.242.220|209.93.242.220]] ([[User talk:209.93.242.220|talk]]) 09:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'll add on that the section should be removed from this page. It is already copied word-for-word on [[Post-presidency of Bill Clinton#Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein]]. The entire section is guilt by association, and no evidence or criminal conduct has been proven or levied against Clinton. Epstein's relationship with Clinton is far less important than Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and its inclusion on this page likely violates Wiki policies on [[WP:DUE|due weight]]. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 21:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

:::I've gone ahead and removed it for now. There seems to be agreement here and in the above talk section "Someone needs to re-add the relations with Jeffery Epstein section", where arguments in favor of including it lacked basis in wiki policy and instead made allegations of "bias" by "the left". [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 21:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2025 ==

Clinton supporters can no doubt point to many other highly political pardons in history, including for example [[:Gerald Ford|Gerald Ford]]'s pardon of [[:Richard Nixon|Richard Nixon]]. I'm sure that in the entire sordid history of politics, there have been many other cases of apparent pardons for money.

{{edit semi-protected|Bill Clinton|answered=yes}}

Clinton was considered by some to be the most [[:Machiavellian|Machiavellian]] president of the [[:United States|United States]] often using presidential powers to decrease the focus on troublesome scandals. He ordered the bombing of Kosovo the day of the [[:Monica Lewinsky|Monica Lewinsky]] impeachment vote and bombed an asprin factory in [[:Sudan|Sudan]] to cover up ? He used whatever was politically expedient to further his policies such as observing [[:Confederate|Confederate]] Day while govenor of [[:Arkansas|Arkansas]] and then condeming [[:Confederate|Confederate]] flags while president.

[[User:Melody-14078|Melody-14078]] ([[User talk:Melody-14078|talk]]) 19:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Bill Clinton wasis a two (more?) time governor ofnot the state of [[:Arkansas|Arkansas]].best¡

:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> No edit request made. [[User:LizardJr8|LizardJr8]] ([[User talk:LizardJr8|talk]]) 19:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Major legislation he signed:

* Balanced budget

* Welfare Reform - vetoed twice - signed the third time

* NAFTA - the previous president [[George H. W. Bush]], was largely responsible for getting NAFTA enacted

* Tax increase on Social Security recipients

* Minimum wage increase

SupremeCourt appointments:

Major legislation he vetoed:

Major legislation he failed to get passed through Congress:

* Healthcare Reform - socialized/nationalized health care (similar to [[:Canada|Canada]] and the [[:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]])

:Actually, although a significant fraction of Americans wanted a system like that, others, wary of a large complex system did not, and what Hillary Clinton and all the conferences etc. ended up with was a difficult-to-summarize public/private mish-mash.

* Social Security Reform - He appointed a committee on Social Security Reform and then dismissed their recommendations.

: So was legislation ever proposed?

----

Didn't he also create (have something to do with creating) the [[:AmeriCorps|AmeriCorps]]. These people do good stuff, imho. Then there is all the stuff about national health care, nafta, welfare reform, increasing money for student loans ... lots more than the scandal happened. He was also the governor of Arkansas a few times. (this page entails lots of hmwk) --PhillipHankins

----

Clinton's compromises on environmental and social issues were a great disappointment to the more progressive and/or radical types who vote [[:Democrat|Democrat]] sometimes. However, he did promote dialogue on race issues during his presidency, both in speeches and with a small budget.

See also:

* UnitedStatesGovernment1992

* UnitedStatesGovernment1994

* UnitedStatesGovernment1996

* UnitedStatesGovernment1998

----

----

Wouldn't it be nice to have (is there already) a short standard for nations? There's one that's used for internet domains, us = [[:United States|United States]], ca = Canada, etc. Then we could use us/Democrat (then a us/Democrat page redirects to UnitedStates/DemocraticParty i guess).

:''No, I don't think so. Such standards are too hard to formulate and extremely fallible, as well as being anti-wiki generally. Just let things develop naturally first, anyway, and see what happens a few months or years down the road. -- [[:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]''

::The standard already exists, it's an ISO thing, the internet country TLDs use it.

:Here's an interesting bug. There's patches at UseMod:UseMod/Bugs that look like they might fix it: The BlueQuestionMark after us/Democrat points to a page to edit [[:William Jefferson Clinton/Democrat|William Jefferson Clinton/Democrat]] (the SubPage uses this page as the base page instead of "us"). I'm tempted to create a us page and a us/Democrat page to check, but i don't want to mess up the database.

:us/Democrat is not recognized as a link; [[:Bill_Clinton/Democrat|/Democrat]] is. You can use square brackets to make [[:us/Democrat|us/Democrat]] a link.

::''But please don't start in on a "US" page...there's already a [[:United States|United States]] page.''

::If i did it would get redirected :-) --JohnAbbe

This would focus on parties as organizations in separate nations, although there are *sometimes* transnational commonalities in purpose between same-named parties. I guess there could then be a separate DemocraticParty or [[:Democratic Party|Democratic Party]] page (we need easier ways to create redirect pages -- is anyone coding a Wiki:WikiBrowser yet? I'll pay real $$ for a GPL'd one that runs on OS X.)

:''Renaming is something that system administrators can do. We're just exploring it now. And please, do use [[:Free Links|Free Links]] rather than that ugly old mashed together style of linking, which looks silly. -- [[:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]''

But i digress. The more pertinent question i have is, where are the WikipediaStandardsDiscussions? --JohnAbbe

:''See [[:Wikipedia policy|Wikipedia policy]]. We've been discussing all this stuff a lot...don't reinvent the wheel. :-)''

Thanks! --JohnAbbe

<hr>

could someone make the history of his presidency less about "Deomocrats..." "Republicans....", and more like the presidential histories you read about presidents like John F. Kennedy, Truman, FDR, Teddy, etc. etc. etc. this reads like a history of the American two party system during the last decade of the 20th century.

----

I totally agree. --[[:LMS|LMS]]

----

I do not agree; at least not totally. First, it is impossible to write anything like the presidential histories of Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, etc. because the Clinton presidency is simply too recent for its historical significance to be judged.

Second, the impact of the Clinton presidency on American politics is not unimportant; although I agree that in the current article it seems overemphasized, I believe that is mainly because the article is so incomplete in its treatment of other topics. - HWR

----

Not very Pro Clinton - Created the "unofficial" Clinton at:

* http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc.html perhaps some of this is useful here

This might be useful -

The Clinton Presidency and the Crisis of Democracy - by Howard Zinn

* http://www.zpub.com/un/zinn12.html

----

Actually, the NY Times article says the following: 'The Bill Clinton entry, for instance, said in late August he was "a two (more?) time governor of the state of Arkansas." Within two weeks it was updated to reflect the years he served as governor. (He served six two-year terms, or 12 years over a 14-year period.)' Our article says he served two terms as governor of Arkansas. --KQ

----

Why have several links been deleted and replaced by others in the latest version? --[[:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]]

----

Is it too early to add a Post Presidential Years section?

:If there's stuff worth adding, add it!--[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 12:15 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

:I'd add it the day after if there's something to say. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 12:18 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

----

* ''[[April 19]], [[1993]] - government siege on the [[Branch Davidians|Branch Davidian]] compound at Waco, Texas results in the death of 80 people - '''Republicans blame Clinton and Attorney General [[Janet Reno]], rather than cult leader David Koresh''' ''

I've removed the bolded portion until someone can state this in an NPOV way. - [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] 08:09 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

---------

Removed:<br>

He was also a California State Assemblyman from the 19 district.

Is this true? I never heard of him ever even establishing residency in California. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 05:02 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The article said that Paula Jones recieved money from conservative groups, which makes it sound like she decided to sue Clinton because she recieved money before deciding to sue. That is not the case. Please correct this.

Also, you describe Whitewater as a "failed land deal", but it was much more then that. Hillary Clinton was put in charge of investigating the bank- which lent that "failed land deal" money- to keep going. Another words, she was investigating the very bank that had kept her stake in Whitewater from going bankrupt. That's kind of shady, to say the least. Merely suggesting that it was a "failed land deal" makes it sound like someone was making a mountain out of a molehill. You also should have mentioned that at least 13 people were convicted or pled guilty in the Whitewater investigation, and that Ken Starr was given the edict to follow the investigation "wherever it led".

I would also like to see it mentioned in the article that President Clinton bombed a country on the day of the impeachment vote.

Finally, I think its worth nothing that the impeachment vote was mainly along party lines.

John Abbott

:If you think the article is incorrect, '''you''' can make changes! Remember, however, that they must be in keeping with the [[neutral point of view]].

:As to your specific points, it is relevant that conservatives did fund her (would she have pursued her case so vigorously without their encouragement?), though if you want to clarify that fact, go ahead. For Whitewater, try to explain all the complexities of it on this page is probably inappropriate (because Whitewater involved more people than just Bill) but if you can come up with a better characterisation that would be acceptable to people from both sides of politics, go for it. As far as the "bombing on the day of the impeachment vote", why is that significant? If your implication is that a lot of conservatives think that he bombed on that day to avoid getting convicted, you'd want to say that (and provide evidence), otherwise, it's irrelevant. Finally, I agree without reservation that it is important to mention that the impeachment vote, despite the pretentiousness of the whole process, was essentially a party-line vote.

----

By the way, the person who vandalised the article happens to be from a Navy installation. I wonder what the rules for a sailor misusing the Navy's computer resources are? --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 22:37, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

== image ==

The box on the right-hand side gives information about the Presidency of the United States. So shouldn't the image be one from his Presidency? Futhermore, the most important office or job he has ever had is that of POTUS. So this article should have an image of him from that time period. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 04:43, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

:I agree, the presidential image is more analogous with the images of other presidents. [[User:Evil saltine|Evil saltine]] 04:48, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

:FYI, the image is from his later years as President, not the first year like the old image.

But the first one is an offical portrait. The older one is just him on the street. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|<font color=darkblue>ng</font>]] 07:18, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The original picture is the much better one. It is an official picture taken indoors with a flag in the background and is much more professional. Plus it is public ___domain, unlike the probable copyright infringement which it was replaced with. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|Anthony DiPierro]] 07:24, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

::I have replaced the newer image of Clinton with the WH one. The older one seem to stick out like a sore thumb and looked rather ugly. -- [[User:Hoshie|iHoshie]] 09:18, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If not a copyvio, it can be linked elsewhere in the article. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|<font color=darkblue>ng</font>]] 09:46, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have asked that is page be protected. That request has been granted. I requested the protection due the row we are having over which image we want use as the former President's photo.

I propose it now: Do we want to use the offical WH photo or the unofficial photo [[User:ChrisDJackson]] has uploaded? If we use the unofficial photo, what is the copyright on the photo?

I want to settle this. -- [[User:Hoshie|iHoshie]] 08:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

== Osama Bin Laden ==

This was just undone in the article:

:It is now becoming apparent, following the attacks on September 11th, 2001 that Bill Clinton could have pursued a more aggressive policy toward terrorist groups attacking American interests here in the United States and abroad. He even refused an offer to have Osama Bin Laden handed over to U.S. authorities twice during the '90s. Also, his policies that resulted in the reduction of our intelligence agencies hurt the U.S. abilities to uncover terrorist attacks before they occur. These policies were reversed with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a cabinet level position, by President George W. Bush.

Any way that some NPOV part of this can be included. My understanding was that Clinton got an least one opportunity to destroy or capture Bin Laden and decided not to take the action. - [[User:Texture|Texture]] 22:47, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The counterpoint is that the opportunity was not credible, and to take advantage of it would have been a major compromise of U.S. interests. The offer came from Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American businessman. He approached the U.S. independently and claimed that Sudan, a state sponsor of terror, would arrest Osama in exchange for a lifting of sanctions. The Clinton administration contends that the offer was not corroborated by the Sudan government itself, and that Ijaz was an unreliable agent since he had substantial investments in Sudanese exports, and had also falsely claimed to be an U.S. diplomat while negotiating with other governments in the past. Clinton did pursue an aggressive strategy against Osama (c.f. cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998), but not a desperate one. It is far from clear, even in hindsight, that there was an opportunity. [[User:Rebrane|Rebrane]] 07:22, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

What is credible is that Clinton had no less than three opportunities to order strikes on Osama bin Laden, as he was spotted in real time by troops on the ground in Afghanistan. This information has been recounted and documented numerous times lately in American literature, by authors who were in or near Clinton's cabinet while the opportunities presented themselves. Each time, Clinton failed to act. Given the gravity of Osama bin Laden's actions and his impact to history, it's not justice to let these facts go without mention. I've added as neutral a point of view on this issue as possible, laying the credit/blame for the situation at his economic policies as many well educated writers and analysts have (policies which are not in dispute - he did cut military and intelligence funding dramatically during his tenure in office).

== image choices ==

It is my opinion that the images used inside the presidential table should be only images made during the presidency. Images made before or after the presidency can still be placed elsewhere in the article, but NOT in the presidential table. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 00:39, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And your point is? Both pics I uploaded are from his presidency and inside the oval office. ChrisDJackson

:So is the current one. The pic youre currently inserting has him looking off to the side and is of poor quality. Bad taste... --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']]

:Is Mr. Jackson going to defend his image? I'm waiting for him. --Jiang

There is nothing to defend stalker, it is less dark and smaller. That is it. You have to be childish and follow me to every article and rv everything wheteher it is good or not. Just leave me alone for once.

: Both images look the same to me, other than size and some very minor gamma differences. It really doesn't matter which one is used, as anyone who isn't involved in an edit war is unlikely to care. Why not just keep the original since there was nothing wrong with it? (Note: I say this without knowing which one is the original, and I don't care. That's how little difference there actually is in the images.) [[User:ShaneKing|ShaneKing]] 01:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:Please calm down and discuss the issues, not the person making them. An attitude like that will get you banned. A direct facial portrait with him looking at the camera is better than one with him looking away. We only need his face, not his entire upper torso. And yes, larger is better. What have you got against the original image? --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 01:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why not have both? But the longstanding photo shows better facial detail and should be the one in the table. The newer photo can be placed in another section. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

: I know! you could make an animated .gif out of all the images! And maybe some midi music in the background!

Please let's stop the switching back & forth between photos. If anyone has a particular preference, let's discuss it below. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 22:47, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

: Oh, sheesh, if we have multiple image choices, can we PLEASE give them different names (like "Bill Clinton 2" or something) rather than uploading multiple versions over the same name?-- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 23:00, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whatever image we choose, let's not use a painting. In my opinion, a photograph leaves a stronger impression on the reader. [[User:Matthew Low| ]]&ndash;[[User:Matthew Low|Matt]] 03:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:They were mass inserted a few hours ago. Discuss at [[Talk:President of the United States]] or the Village Pump. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 04:23, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

== Image:Bill Clinton.jpg ==

[[Image:Bill Clinton.jpg]]

=== I like this one because:===

# Because it is smaller in actual size and file size, it is lighter and easier to see detail, and just looks better than the big, dark, ugly picture. I don't see what the big deal is. This is just a continued vendetta towards me, thats it. [[User:ChrisDJackson]]

## (Anonymous flame I had left removed. Sorry about that. I still disagree with you calling it a "vendetta" but I'll try to be more polite in the future. ''[[User:PenguiN42|PenguiN42]] 17:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)'')

===I don't like this one because:===

# Because the color is flushed out. It looks like a mistake. It is weaker in color and detail than the other version. This is nothing against ChrisD personally. The other JPG of the same portrait is better. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 23:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

#Because smaller is not better when we have a new syntax to reduce the size of images. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 00:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

== Image:Bill-Clinton.jpg ==

[[Image:Bill-Clinton.jpg]]

=== I like this one because:===

#The colors are deeper, which provides more contrast. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 23:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

#Better colors, and larger, for those who want to click on the pic and view a larger version. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']]

===I don't like this one because:===

== Image:BillClinton1999.jpg ==

[[Image:BillClinton1999.jpg]]

=== I like this one because:===

# It is an official portrait that as far as I know has not yet been involved in an revertion conflict on Wikipedia. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 23:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

# I really like it but they will bitch you out for it. They think what they say goes and they don't like other images being added. However, I think it may be a bit small.

[[User:ChrisDJackson]]

===I don't like this one because:===

#looks like promotional propaganda with the special lighting. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']]

#he's not looking at the camera - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]]

== Image:Bill_Clinton_2000.jpg ==

[[Image:Bill_Clinton_2000.jpg]]

===I don't like this one because:===

#The cameraman didnt center his frame. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']]

*It might just be poorly cropped. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 00:24, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

*No, this is the way the picture is supposed to look. I am sure that the person who took the picture was a pro unlike some people who seem to think they are. [[User:ChrisDJackson]]

Okay, it looks like is the only one of the choices with no serious objections raised to it above. Let's leave it unless we can reach a consensus about some other photo the majority likes better. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 01:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

===Poverty?===

I don't think it's correct to refer, as this article does, to Bill Clinton having grown up in "poverty." That's a pretty specific term, and I've never read anything to indicate that Bill Clinton grew up in poverty. Lower-middle-class, sure. But poverty? No. I'd like to change that reference when this page is unprotected. [[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]] 02:18, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

:So how do we go about getting it unprotected? It's been months now. [[User:Mdchachi|Mdchachi]] 16:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:unprotected. rm the notice on your next edit. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 22:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

===First Lady's Maiden Name and Presidents table===

I don't see any reason why the presidents table should be removed and not taken into consideration the display Hillary Clinton's full maiden name before she married Bill Clinton. Why undo my changes? --[[User:65.73.0.137|65.73.0.137]]

:How about this?--because the cell is labeled as "First Lady" and not as "First Lady's Maiden Name". As the First Lady, she was known as "Hillary Rodham Clinton " not as "Hillary Diane Rodham". [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 15:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference. The full maiden names of other First Ladies also appear on other presidents' cells. And you didn't read my last message on the presidents table. I don't see why it should be removed because it is seen in other presidential bios. --[[User:65.73.0.137]]

:Heh--the only reason they appear on the other presidents is because you have been waging a campaign to change them all. Rather disingenuous. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 15:34, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Wrong! My 'campaign' ''started'' because of the reasons I've given you. I really have seen similar sights on other pages before I starting editing presidential bios. --[[User:65.73.0.137|65.73.0.137]]

:Ok, I may have been a bit presumptuous, although there does appear to be some disagreement about what form of the First Lady's name should go in the box. I have no strong opinion about the table, though I think there's a lot of redundant clutter with the table on the side and two msgs at the bottom. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 16:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

You have a point there, sir. But wait till I tell you mine. Some people would like to check out the previous or next President, or they may decide to find out about an unlinked President. I hope this helps. --[[User:65.73.0.137|65.73.0.137]]

It seems like an edit war is developing over how to properly cite Hillary's name. Can that be resolved here before the page needs to be protected?

[[User:Acegikmo1|Acegikmo1]] 03:03, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

==Page Move==

I have moved this back to [[Bill Clinton]], in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Naming convention]], which states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." See [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)]] for more. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] 15:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

*I would have made the same decision Meelar made: change it back to '''Bill Clinton'''. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 17:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

==Profession==

Jiang, can you explain why you keep reverting to laywer? Is it wrong to say "attorney" and "gov of Arkansas"? [[User:Paranoid|Paranoid]] 20:48, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

:Job titles are not the same as professions. Visit [[attorney]] and tell me what's wrong with that link. It's customary not to include political titles - World Book doesn't do this. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 04:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Since all Presidents are politicians, I removed "politician" from Profession. --[[User:Hcheney|H.]] [[User talk:Hcheney|C<small>HENEY</small>]] 19:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== UK edition vs US edition ==

Is there any guidelines about when/how to list a UK/Eurpean edition of a book vs. the US edition? Currently Clinton's bio lists the UK edition, which, if you follow the ISBN link takes you to nothing if you try US booksellers. Seems this should be the US edition, or at the very least list both. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 03:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:Good point. Maybe we need to add a US and UK version of the ISBN number. -- [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]]

== Image of young kid reading with Clinton ==

[[Image:ClintonChild.jpg|thumb|200px|right|''President Clinton remained very popular throughout his scandal ridden presidency, especially with younger people.'']]

The caption doesn't seem very NPOV to me. Could this be changed?

:This is backed by opinion polls of the era. I don't see how it's POV, but it might be irrelevant for this photo. Youger people usually refers to younger people of voting age. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 03:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::I believe the NPOV concern is because of the phrase "''scandal ridden''". Why mention scandal at all in this caption? If we do want some kind of contrast between his popularity and the scandals, a more NPOV caption might mention "investigations" and/or "impeachment proceedings" instead. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 02:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::I agree. The phrase "''scandal ridden''' does not belong in the caption. Having it there is highly POV. I'm removing it. [[User:Wfeidt|Bill]] 16:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Timeline entries ==

I'd like to add an entry to this effect:

* August 17, 1998 - Clinton testifies before a grand jury about his relationship with [[Monica Lewinsky]]. In the evening, he delivers a [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/speech/transcript.html nationally televised address] in which he describes his relationship with Lewinsky as "not appropriate" but also "nobody's business".

I hope this is not seen as NPOV (no Clinton basher, I) -- I just think that day was one of the most bizarre and critical days of his presidency (with respect to how he has been judged since). Comments? Criticisms? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:12, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can see no reason why the entirety of the article should be pro-Clinton, or why the unpleasant facts about his actions as an individual while president should be documented in an apologetic fashion. This is an article about the man, and your addition is both factual and relevant.

:Then why didn't you ([[User:208.20.195.222]]) include the whole thing? And why did you add clearly non-NPOV material in the economic section? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of "my" entry to (essentially) the original version above (one small change to minimize redundancy)). I also '''removed''' the following statement: "''Military disgruntled because it was denied the hardware it thought essential to the operation.''" -- mainly because of the personification and generality involved (who in the military? and denied by whom?). I couldn't improve the wording without potentially introducing inaccuracies, so I removed it in the hopes that someone knowledgable in the area would resubmit the info (if necessary) in a slightly different form. '''BTW''', some of these entries push the bounds of relevance, IMHO. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 08:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Post-Term Impact of Clinton's Policies ==

I removed the following paragraphs:

:Despite the dramatic increase in personal wealth amongst many Americans during this period, economists and analysts in the private sector, government, military, and even the Federal Reserve Bank predicted that policies enacted or supported by President Clinton were in fact damaging the country's long term economic health. Some of these fears did in fact become reality - particularly, the United States military has been forced to implement an unprecedented recall program for military retirees to address troop shortages in the nation's continuing [[War on Terror]]. During President Clinton's years in office, the strength of the nation's military was severely weakened due to dramatic spending cuts. It is also believed that these budget cuts led to breakdowns in the nation's intelligence capability, eventually leading to failures that did not predict the [[WTC]] attacks on [[September 11th|9/11/01]].

:Additionally, much of the strength of the economy for which President Clinton was credited resulted from the growth of the "dot-com bubble", and not the economic policies that President Clinton favored. When the [[irrational exuberance]] of the stock market, as termed by Federal Reserve Board chief [[Alan Greenspan]], finally reached its maximum in the late 1990s, a much more accurate state of the impact of Clinton's economy was evidenced. The resulting economic downturn was, broadly and without specifics, blamed on President Clinton's successor to the Oval Office. Due to the fact that President Clinton's successor, [[George W. Bush]], had not been in office long enough to see his economic policies affect the nation's economy, many conservatives attributed the popular view of recent history to an American [[liberal media bias]].

What specific policies of Clinton did the Federal Reserve predict to damage the economy? The reduction in military was IIRC largely bipartisan. Who believes these budget cuts led to breakdowns in the nation's intelligene capability? In the 2nd paragraph, we move into damned if you do and damned if you don't territory. It reads like Clinton wasn't actually responsible for the economy, but he is still blamed for it anyhow. I agree that Bush was sometimes unfairly blamed for the downturn, but I'm not sure what exactly that has to do with Clinton. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 03:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To answer your first question, the surplusses that Clinton enjoyed as a result of the booming stock market were believed by Greenspan to be dangerously oversized. As a result, he suggested tax cuts to lower the surplusses and to prevent the economy from reaching a growth rate that could not be sustained. He also had some well founded but unpopular suggestions for handling Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Clinton and Greenspan had an unwritten agreement to "tolerate" one another in a friendly fashion. Clinton wouldn't argue with Greenspan publicly, and Greenspan wouldn't call him out as a tax-and-spend liberal. This is obviously subjective, and as such unfit for inclusion in the article, but can be backed up by interviews with former Clinton cabinet members and writings of prominent political thinkers (just do a Google search on "clinton greenspan disagree" for starters). The whole point of the contribution was to provide a balance to the immediate evidence of bias in this article. Clinton wasn't responsible for the unprecedented rise in the economy, the surging technology stock market was. Bush wasn't responsible for the downturn resulting from its explosion - the country was experiencing a hangover from the party that got out of control, which was then worsened by 9/11. In so far as the article does not unduly credit Clinton with this economic phenomenon (as is already, repeatedly, seems to do), I've no problem with altering the wording.

My issue is that virtually nothing in those bullet-points mentioned is universally, or even reasonably believed to be attributed to Bill Clinton's economic policies. That said, they were not removed as they were obviously believed by enough people to warrant its inclusion. And while you may not be aware of them, there are in fact quite a few people and numerous (dozens? hundreds?) of pundits/experts who attribute the meltdown of our military and our intelligence arsenals to events that occurred by Clinton's hand, or on his watch (e.g. cutting their spending in the face of huge surplusses, a mounting middle-eastern threat that went virtually ignored, and a surging economy????).

It doesn't seem like the rest of this article was subjected to the "prove it" mandate, if it were, it would necessarily read quite differently. However, if there is in fact some unwritten rule whereby every single contribution needs to be substantiated with a bibliographical reference, I'd be happy to perform that work - provided those who are painting this individual in a much rosier and glossier manner than is warranted do the same. If that's unreasonable, I'll put the text as written in place again in one week's time. Please try to act professionally toward those with whom you do not agree - provide a suggestion for modification that you feel is mutually agreeable rather than performing wholesale removal of a contribution. See the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete NPOV guidelines]. - TRM 17:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:Quote: ''Please try to act professionally toward those with whom you do not agree - provide a suggestion for modification that you feel is mutually agreeable rather than performing wholesale removal of a contribution.'' Huh? Simply because I removed a section of text that is full of unsubstanitated vagaries, I am also responsible for editing it? No, I don't think so. However, I am mildly offended that you consider it to be somehow "unprofessional" (whatever that might mean). That said, what I object to is not that something critical was said about ole Billy Boy, but that it was full of vague allegations. When you say "policies enacted or supported by President Clinton were in fact damaging the country's long term economic health", which policies? leaving it unspecified implies that it may be any or all of his policies. When you claim ''there are in fact quite a few people and numerous (dozens? hundreds?) of pundits/experts who attribute the meltdown of our military and our intelligence arsenals to events that occurred by Clinton's hand'', there are in fact quite a few people and numerous (dozens? hundreds?) of pundits/experts who attribute any number of bad things to Clinton and his policies, some perhaps justified and many not--so what? That's what pundits do, offer opinions according to their biases. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 17:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::Well, you win. Herein lies the fundamental issue with "Open" technologies - the content/benefit becomes weighted by whomever is ''loudest''. The fact is that the entire article could be construed as being full of "unsubstantiated vaguaries" - to wit, sentence #2: '''"During his administration, the United States enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history"'''. Where is this substantiated? The problem is that I don't care enough about this guy, or the accuracy of the document, to argue with zealots such as yourself in cyberspace. Ultimately, people will believe what they want to believe, regardless as to what is written. However, the NPOV guidelines state that rather than removing a contribution, it should basically be couunterweigted by an opposite view - this is what I did, and you've plainly and blatantly acted contrary to those guidelines. I have better things to do. Maybe someone else will realize that you are not neutral enough to contribute and take appropriate action - a simple review of your user page reveals all, you in fact hold President Bush responsible for the state of the economy and your joblessness (or did at one time), hardly a neutral sentiment. I think if neutral individuals with as little tolerance for nonsense as I had visited this article before, this conversation would already have taken place. - TRM 17:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:::The pot calls the kettle black. Sure, I think Bush is a bonehead and that in general, Clinton was a far better president, even with his personal failings which were made into a public spectacle by right-wing zealots. I try not to hide my biases--NPOV applies to articles, not to user pages, and arguably not to the discussion pages. Once again, I removed the text not because it was biased (althoug it was that also), but because it was too vague for me to even know where to begin with editing it into something more acceptable. If what you wrote was so vague that I didn't know what you meant (aside from casting Clinton in a negative light), how am I supposed to know how to edit. And I will note, that I did not simple delete the text, I moved it to the discussion page, where it could be, well, um, discussed. If you think this is improper, well, so it goes...we have a different interpretation of the NPOV editing policy--if you think I have abused the policy, then you're free to pursue the matter. If you think the rest of the Clinton article is biased, you are welcome to edit it. I actually agree with you that it is probably a bit too rosy right now, but like you, I don't feel any particluar inclination to chase down details and edit it at this point. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 18:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== BIAS: Accusations, impeachment, and legal problems ==

This section contains obvious, overt bias. A non-biased article does *not* use such phrases as::

"Clinton was dogged by a group of conservative activists who despised him" - you cannot presume a group "despises" anyone, disagreement != despise

"she said that her husband's administration had been persecuted by a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but the facts tend to bear her out." - an opinion

"Scaife and his minions" - rediculous, unfettered bias

"news outlets took on faith any claim of wrongdoing by the Clintons and trumpeted them around the country" - this is an opinion

"Even if they admitted that some particular claim had been disproven, the very next moment they would continue to repeat the disproven claims as if they had been true all along" - rhetoric

"Right-wing scourge David Brock later described how he and other shills" - come on.. does Britannica use the terms "scourge" and "shills"??

Who the hell added this yellow crap?

:If you feel that the wording is inappropriate, then reword it, don't simply delete whole sections of material. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 18:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::"Inappropriate" is an understatement. It is quite apparent the author is a childish, politiking troll. My version of rewriting is deletion, because that block is unrevisable. Bias and yellow journalism does not belong in an encyclopedia.

I'll admit I went over the top with that section and I don't dispute that it should be revised. However, I don't agree with the (anonymous) editor who thinks it should just be killed. NPOV doesn't mean that demonstrable facts such as the activities of Scaife and the Arkansas Project and the media's treatement of unproven charges against Clinton should be ignored. They are important to understanding what happened during that time. Maybe I'm a "childish, politicking troll," but I'm not immune to correction. [[User:Acsenray|Acsenray]] 15:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:Proposed revision (please comment)

:Clinton's political success triggered a firestorm of reaction from right-wing activists, led by a newly effective network of conservative media outlets and funded by wealthy conservatives such as Pittsburgh banking heir [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]. Radio broadcasters such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] daily made accusations of corruption and dishonesty against Clinton, often without solid evidence or by shading facts. Scaife's [[Arkansas Project]] went about trying to find suggestions of wrongdoing in Clinton's past and publicizing allegations without solid evidence. When Clinton's wife, [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] described this informal network as a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," she was ridiculed by the conservative media; however, former conservative journalist [[David Brock]] has described in books such as ''Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative'' and ''The Republican Noise Machine : Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy'' his own involvement in exaggerating claims against the Clintons and the network of conservative media operations (including those owned by [[Rupert Murdoch]] and the Rev. [[Sun Myung Moon]]) that kept such accusations at the forefront of the public's attention.

No comments so far. I'll insert the above section into the article and wait for further comments. [[User:Acsenray|Acsenray]] 17:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==Most famous quotes==

I object to this section as POV. It gets the last word in the article. And it is solely intended to highlight scandals -- who says these are the "most" famous? Consider, for example, if the GW Bush article ended with:

*Make the pie higher

*major league asshole

*now watch this drive

Or Reagan with:

*We begin bombing [Russia] in five minutes

*I did not trade arms for hostages

*Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.

Cutting as promoting POV.

IT IS NOT POV!

Ask anyone, Democrat or Repuplican, what are the three most famous quotes. This is what you will get.

I am a Democrat (large D) and '''I am a Clinton supporter'''. If you can come up with ANY THREE QUOTES, recognizable by any non-wonk, then substutue them - but by replacement one at a time replacement, not removal! - I think these quotes demonstratate the huumanity of this great president [[User:Leonard G.|Leonard G.]] 03:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)