Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive 12

Please remove 'wheelchair bound' from this page
The caption for the image that shows President Clinton meeting with a Hurricane Katrina evacuee should not use the phrase 'wheelchair bound'. This is a highly inappropriate and incorrect way to refer to someone who uses a wheelchair.

For reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations

The correct term is wheelchair user; please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.108.44 (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is now removed in the wikimedia caption. However, the caption still shows the same on the Bill clinton site. I don't know if it needs to be edited separately or if it will refresh the new wikimedia caption on its own, b/c it looks like editing is blocked on this article? zammy (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We do not cater to political correctness. "Wheelchair bound" is not an unreasonable term. Tarc (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be an acceptable compromise to edit this to "wheelchair user"? In my last edit, I deleted the entire phrase about the wheelchair because it was unnecessary, but if someone insists on keeping the word "wheelchair" there, what possible harm could come from editing the phrase to be less biased and offensive? I am not for needlessly catering to PC objections, but I don't see any reason to revert edits that remove potentially offensive language and do not remove any useful information. I still say take everything about wheelchair out of the caption, but I am willing to compromise. What do others think? zammy (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As I was trying to write a "compromised" caption, I saw that the compromise would result in some awkward wording: "wheel chair user Hurricane Katrina evacuee" So I simply reverted the revert of my edit. The caption is on the long side, and an attentive observer can see the hand on the wheelchair, so describing the woman as wheelchair-bound is superfluous, sort of like adding in the caption that Obama is holding his jacket as though it were a kitty-cat. zammy (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We do not cater to political correctness. This will be stated as many times as you need to hear it. Tarc (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't see this back-and-forth before I made my edit. I see no problem with "wheelchair-bound" in general, but the fact is in this case all we know is that the woman is seated in a wheelchair, not if she is confined to it. So, not for PC reasons but because we have little information, I changed it to "who is in a wheelchair".  If the photo was of someone known to be wheelchair-bound, like Stephen Hawking, I would certainly use the "wheelchair-bound" phrase because, as Tarc said, we don't cater to political correctness, for PC sake.   I also was bothered by the Obama part of the caption - again, didn;t see this before I edited it - not because of any allusion to a kitten (which I don't get anyway) but because the line was worded in a way that it was unclear if he was holding his own jacket or Clinton's, and anyway, who cares about the damn jacket? And, he is not in the background, he's right there behind Bill.  So, I changed it.  I hope this will put an end to this. Tvoz / talk 22:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nixon WAS Impeached
Nixon WAS in fact impeached on August 7, 1973. Here is a link to read about it. Nixon resigned before the impeachment could be referred for trial, but in 1973 the Judiciary Committee had been given authority to act for the full House, and consequently Nixon WAS impeached. Read about it here.It is therefore appropriate to state that Clinton was the THIRD President to face impeachment. Impeachment is the indictment of the House of Representatives. A seperate element is then trial by the Senate. Nixon resigned before the Senate received the House referral, but the House Judiciary committee under Rep. Sam Ervin was empowered to act on behalf of the whole House (sitting as a committee of the whole) to pass impeachment resolutions. Four of these were voted and passed. Please read the link offered. Nixon was impeached, but no trial was necessary as he resigned after the impeachment articles passed the House. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm The   Moody  Blue (Talk)  23:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The House Judiciary Committee approved the 3 articles of impeachment, but Nixon resigned before the full House could consider the matter. Since it is the full House of Representatives that is empowered to impeach, and not a committee, Nixon was not impeached.  It is true that the House accepted the committee's findings by motion after Nixon's resignation, but since there was no formal vote nor a referral to the Senate for trial, there was no actual impeachment.  This is basic civics here, not terribly complicated to understand; I attribute your misunderstanding to the failing of the American educational system. Tarc (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wording of Impeachment section
Current wording is:
 * In a lame-duck session of Congress after the 1998 elections, the House voted to impeach Clinton, based on the results of the Lewinsky scandal.[27] This made Clinton only the second U.S. president to be impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson).

In an effort at compromise between some editors, I proposed the addition of some mention of Richard Nixon in the text that has paragraphs around it. Nixon was not impeached, however, he was recommended for impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee, per the Washington Post, "The first such impeachment recommendation in more than a century". I'm not set on a specific wording, but considering the gravity of the charge of impeachment, the rarity of it even being seriously considered for a president, and the fact that we make the comparison of Clinton to Andrew Johnson, it seems relevant to mention Nixon in this context. -- Avanu (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about Richard Nixon. Why make mention of him if he wasn't impeached?-- JOJ Hutton  04:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it is rare for a president to even have been considered for impeachment. Our sources tell us that Nixon was definitely headed for impeachment and if he hadn't resigned, he would have been impeached. By mentioning Nixon's close call, you also curtail those who assume wrongly that Nixon *was* impeached, like the debate above, and educate our readers. -- Avanu (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, Nixon's impeachment course was not simply political rhetoric, it was a near inescapable reality.
 * From the New York Times (Aug. 8, 1974), "His chances of being acquitted were almost hopeless. Senator Barry, Goldwater, the Arizona conservative who was the Republican Presidential candidate in 1964, told him that he had no more than 15 votes in the Senate, far short of the 34 he needed to be sure of escaping conviction. Members of his own staff, including Gen. Alexander M. Haig Jr., the White House chief of staff, strongly recommended that he step down in the national interest."
 * He wouldn't have resigned if he thought he could beat it.
 * From Nixon's resignation speech: "Throughout the long and difficult period of Watergate, I have felt it was my duty to persevere -- to make every possible effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me. In the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort."
 * So you ask, "Why make mention of him if he wasn't impeached?" In all but official action, he was. And for that reason, and the reasons I mention above, he should be mentioned in the article alongside Clinton and Johnson. -- Avanu (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 November 2012
The fifth sentence of the third paragraph in the lead reads, "After a failed health care reform attempt, Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, for the first time in forty years." Please remove the comma after "1994". There is no reason for a comma to be used there.

173.160.120.30 (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've rewritten the sentence to make it clearer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence now has a comma splice and a dangling modifier. Please insert the word "and" after the comma and change "After a failed attempt at introducing" to "After he failed to introduce". As it is written, the sentence makes it sound like the Republicans tried to introduce Clinton's health care reform plan. 173.160.120.30 (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Better? Rivertorch (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks. 173.160.120.30 (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thank you for taking the trouble to comment and follow up. Rivertorch (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

possible edits to introduction
I'm not sure if this is important, but I'm thinking about a rewrite of "He implemented Don't ask, don't tell, a controversial intermediate step to full gay military integration"; a few changes I'm considering to the introduction: using "homosexual" as opposed to "gay", for formal style; adding "He also implemented" because the previous sentence also related to a bill being signed into law, and a citation for "After a failed health care reform attempt, the Republican Party won control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years." I would appreciate further discussion of these possible changes, and whether they should be made. --Zer0n888 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It would probably be OK to change the word gay in this case. If you check the following reference (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/654), they do indeed use the word homosexual in this context.  However, for clarity, I would replace the phrase, "intermediate step to full gay military integration" to read "intermediate step to full integration of homosexuals into the military"  On the other hand, do not replace gay in the phrase "gay and lesbian liaison office" which occurs later in the article, because that is what the White House in fact calls it.--Toploftical (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! much appreciated. the other 2 issues still go unaddressed, however. --Zer0n888 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Various style manuals and dictionaries deprecate the use of "homosexual" as a noun because it is widely considered offensive. The word "gay" is quite acceptable for formal writing. Rivertorch (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "homosexual" means simply "same-sexual" so one who is attracted to the same sex, whereas "gay" simply means "pleased or gleeful". I have used the word "homosexual" in many conversations without objection, and I have never heard the word "homosexual" used as an insult. --Zer0n888 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but we don't rely on how individual editors have heard words used; that's original research. At least three major style manuals deprecate the usage that I described, and at least one major dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary, has contained a usage note to that effect at least since its third edition (published over 20 years ago). As for the word "gay", it has multiple meanings. If you can find any reliable source that describes its usage in the sexual orientation sense as informal or nonstandard, I'd be interested to see it. I assume you're not actually arguing that our readership would mistake the current wording as referring to pleased or gleeful soldiers. Rivertorch (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I appreciate the comment, and I will most likely keep the "gay" used on the page, although the source does use the word "homosexual", however, and we can talk about this more privately(perhaps through the village pump, reply if you're interested), I still see "homosexual" as a perfectly reasonable term(again, I would be happy to discuss this at the village pump). the other 2 issues(see first post) are open to discussion, as well. --Zer0n888 (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are multiple Village Pump pages, none of which is usually on my watchlist, so a link would be appreciated (at my talk page or here) if you start such a discussion. Just by way of background, recent discussion on this general usage topic has occurred at a relevant WikiProject. (Btw, please see Help:Talk_page for advice on formatting a discussion thread. It doesn't matter too much when there are only two or three people talking, but the way we're doing it now could get very confusing if lots of editors joined in.) Rivertorch (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

College and law school years
The last three citations in the third paragraph (13, 14, & 15) are from self-published sources. Self-published sources are to never be used for biographies of living people. I think it's safe to assume that conservatives and/or Vietnam veterans would criticize Clinton for this during his campaign but these specific sources need to be removed. I will add a citation from the LA Times that claims the incident was politically damaging. Ceaseless (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Second president to be impeached?
"This made Clinton only the second U.S. president to be impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson)."

Wouldn't better wording be second president to face an impeachment trial? He was ultimately acquitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.63.120 (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Being impeached = facing an impeachment trial. He was not removed from office, but he was [[Impeachment of Bill Clinton|

definitely impeached]]. That's like saying someone was never on trial when they're just found not guilty. They still had the trial.--Louiedog (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Honors
President Clinton has honorary British appointments. Why is this not listed? 72.228.22.228 (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Shgdjf345 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Irish/Scotch-Irish?
Bill Clinton has mentioned his "Irish ansectors" in speeches giveen around St. Patrick's Day. What IS his ancestry? Does he have any documentation that proves he is of Irish descent or does he just wish it should be so and because he's Bill Clinton, I'm supposed to accept his word for it? Where is his evidence? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You might find this link of interest. Seems like some people went digging and found some proof. Wish it had more details though.... FallingGravity (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Worship?
If I were to have landed on earth from another planet, or a distant country, and read this article, I'd assume nearly all the best about B.C. after reading it. The intro itself is filled with superlative adjectives and emphasizes his "accomplishments" based on narrowed polls which really reflect more the economy of the time than the person himself. Where is the personal analysis of said "man?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.172.209.217 (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the BC page could use a section on foreign relations as well as terrorism. It is troubling that no mention is made of his handling of the embassy bombing or his ignorance of Bosnian War Crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmartz (talk • contribs) 03:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of sub-articles
This article is almost 150 KBs long, which is 50 KB more than recommended. There are a number of sub-articles pertaining to Clinton, and some of the content should be moved to them while being summarized here. In particular, I would urge that recent content about Clinton's actions be moved to the article Post-presidency of Bill Clinton. p b  p  16:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is only 53054 characters of readable prose. The other 100,000 characters are formatting, images, captions, citations and such. The 60-100 kb length is based on readable prose. No further splitting is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Positives on Gay Rights
The article appropriately mentions DOMA and (in what I'd argue is a contextually inappropriate manner, since it fails to describe its nature as a compromise intended as a step toward full integration, after Clinton's attempt at full integration was widely regarded to be doomed due to Congressional opposition) DADT. However, it fails to mention the numerous positive things Clinton did for gay rights. To quote from [|Clinton's entry on] the LGBT rights in the United States page, "[As] President, Clinton issued executive orders banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal civilian workforce and successfully lobbied for a doubling of HIV/AIDS research, prevention and treatment funding at the federal level. He also (unsuccessfully) lobbied for passing hate crimes laws for gays and the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Clinton was the first President to select openly gay persons for Administration positions, appointing over 150 LGBT appointees. The first openly gay US ambassador, James Hormel, received a recess appointment from the President after the Senate failed to confirm the nomination." (The citations for all these claims are listed there in a page that -- full disclosure -- I helped edit.)

These significant positive advances should be mentioned, along with the fact that while (as this article mentions) DOMA may have "strained" Clinton's relationship with the gay community, he still had broad support from gay Americans and gay groups after it (like the Human Rights Campaign and The Advocate Magazine, both of which endorsed him in 1996). Right now it sounds like Clinton's policies toward and relationships with gay Americans was largely negative, whereas the reality is that they were (for their time) moderately positive. (That DOMA would have passed without Clinton's signature, since it was passed by a veto-proof majority, should also been mentioned, though his signing it (of course) had immense symbolic importance.) Steeletrap (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you that Clinton did many positive things for gay rights. You mention several of them above.  Why don't you put these facts in the article and document them.  It would be a good addition.  As far as being overly negative, I just recorded the facts as they were stated by the participants and some reactions from critics.


 * Recall that Clinton flatly stated during his campaign that he would overturn "don't ask don't tell", and then broke his promise within a week of inauguration. I like the man.  But lets face  it—his record during his second term on gay rights is a mixed bag.  I did not even mention that Clinton's autobiography omits any reference to his signing of DOMA.Clinton says gays overly critical  If Clinton is so proud of his DOMA strategy "as a compromise intended as a step toward full integration", why not mention it in his autobiography?  My personal feeling:  One expects a George Bush to sign a bill like DOMA.  One doesn't expect it of Clinton.  The NY Times called it an act of cowardice (cited), and I could not agree more.


 * When I was adding the DOMA paragraph I considered adding a whole section about gay rights. But I did not do so because if would require a fairly major revision of the format of the whole article.  Another problem is that there is a lot of overlap between this article and the article Presidency of Bill Clinton.  Perhaps entire gay rights discussion belongs there.  The two articles together need a little bit of reformatting.


 * I'm a bit confused. Did I accidentally state above that DOMA was a "step at full integration"? DOMA was just flagrant anti-gay legislation. DADT is a more complicated issue. Let's remember that Clinton -- as President -- advocated for openly gays serving in the military and compromised on DADT when he knew he lacked the Congressional support. His failure to mention DOMA in the biography may reflect poorly on him personally, but it doesn't relate to his actions for gays as President. (And on DOMA, I think we should clarify that it was past with nearly two dozen votes more than it needed for a veto-proof majority; I agree that a veto would've sent an immesnely powerful message, and he was wrong to sign it; but it should be noted that his signature wasn't exactly the deciding factor for DOMA to become law.)Steeletrap (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to expand and revise the paragraphs on gay rights, I would be willing to help. I agree that more should be said.  The recess appointment of James Hormel was (unlike DOMA) especially courageous.--Foobarnix (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is wrong. Clinton vowed to end the ban on gays in the military! That was a blanket ban on anyone who was gay! Clinton said Don't Ask don't tell don't persue! Previously you could ask and persue and out someone and then they would be kicked out! Clinton's policy was a huge step forward in allowing homosexuals in the military! The negatives was that homosexuality was still banned by the military so more people were removed because of it but the issue was Clinton tried to keep homosexuals in the military and liberalized the policy! Qwerty786 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Qwerty, do I detect a lack of complete commitment to your ideas when you wrote, "This is wrong"? I notice you ended all of your other sentences with exclamation marks (I can't begin to say how persuasive they make your argument) but you omitted the shouty punctuation in the first sentence. That omission might be a slip that betrays how you won't be there when the chips are down. — O'Dea  (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement in the talk section was wrong but the article is right. Clinton did not in 1992 vow to repeal DADT but the total ban on gays in the military! DADT was the liberalization. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have avoided the point very successfully!!!!! — O'Dea  (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo was a province of Serbia - Serbia was a republic of Yugoslavia!
Wording indicates too much that Kosovo was not a part of Serbia within Yugoslavia but was a province of Yugoslavia as a whole and not within Serbia as a province! Qwerty786 (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Bye
It seems political experts have arrived to take this to FA. I will be bowing out of watching this page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo of the EPA headquarters renaming ceremony
I tried to attend the EPA headquarters renaming ceremony (in honor of Clinton) with camera in hand but I was told that I was not on the list. I had contacted the press office before hand, showed up at the South entrance, and was told I could not attend because I was not on the list. It would have been a great picture but alas to no avail. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Student Council at Georgetown University
This is mentioned, underneath what appears to be a poster for his campaign: "Clinton ran for President of the Student Council while attending the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University." However, there is no mention of it whatsoever in the article itself. If there is information about it that can be properly referenced then it should be included. If not, it should be removed from the sidebar. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Romani descent?
I've heard Bil Clinton is partly Romani descent (by way of England). Iftrue, and if reliable sources canbe found, I urge putting it in the article.76.218.104.120 (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Allegations
OK. I noticed that someone made a bold edit to move a subsection with a non neutral heading to its own section based on their perception that allegations deserve a full section. I would argue they do not, but neither do they deserve a sub section. Highlighting these "allegations" is undue weight. Yes, the word allegation is used in the sources. That isn't the issue. The first source I checked for the first broad claim was not actually supported by the reference. It may well be that a number of edits have taken place that changed the meaning of the prose. But I also have another concern and I will have to do a little reading in the archives to get caught up but...there is an entire article about allegations? really? Uhm...that doesn't sound like that is within our BLP policy. Regardless how famous a person may be, they are still a living person and we should handle each piece of information in as neutral a manner as possible. For now I am going to remove the subsection and rewrite that first line to better reflect the source by adding some balance that wasn't included in the summary of the story used from 1998.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 08:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the line in question and the reference:

--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 09:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem is...that source is from 1998 during the Lewinski investigation and if you read it, there is no admission from Mr. Clinton about Lewinski. The source is also the lawyers of Paula Jones making these sweeping allegations so, basically we would have to clarify this as to how there are allegations in such a manner. The source seemed to be used just to add a reference behind allegations, and as well known as these allegations may be, they are still allegations. I believe something along these lines is more encyclopedic:

--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 09:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This will rescue the reference but need not be redundant undue weight by adding into the prose.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 09:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Silly me. Multiple alleged sexual assaults by various womens by a president is merely a public image problem. What was I thinking.  User:Carolmooredc  12:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the same as you are thinking now...a personal point of view? And yes, it is rather silly. Sarcasm aside, no we don't give undue weight to "allegations" by placing the term in a section and segregating all that negative information into one single section.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Waitaminute, waitaminute. What does being "allegations" have to do with anything?  Personally, I think it's undue weight to just insert three paragraphs of sexual-conduct allegations into the "Public image" section; segregating it out into its own subsection helps compartmentalize it and keeps it from overwhelming the rest of the section.  It also facilitates placing a link to Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton, which is an important subarticle.  Powers T 12:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. User:Carolmooredc  21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Importance is not a factor here. That article is not important and has many issues. I see no reason to link it in the manner that was done as it was undue weight.-- Mark  19:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Still a BLP violation to segregate all negative information and the term "allegation" should not be used in the header. How does that effect a link to another page?-- Mark  19:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's Wiki page now has a header above it stating the following:

"This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: There is no section dedicated to, nor even links to the many well documented scandals attached to Bill Clinton, ie Whitewater, Waco, extramarital sexual affairs/harrassment,Jim and Susan MacDougall, Vince Foster, Web Hubbell, Lani Guiner, Zoe Baird, Monica Lewinsky, etc.. Please help improve this article if you can. (August 2013)"

If you read through the page you will find many of these events and people documented through out the page with a few having been hyper linked to send the reader to a wiki page for that particular issue. I believe that this header has been put in place by a person with a negative opinion of the Clinton's. In comparison to George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush you will not find the same headers. The pages are laid out in similar fashion to that of Bill Clinton's page with controversies included in the body but not prominent as a sub section.

I believe that it is necessary to take down this header as it automatically causes the reader to develop an impression of Mr. Clinton before reading the first sentence. If anything this should discussed behind scenes and not directly on the front page until a decision is reached.

Chettmixx (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree.-- Mark  19:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Me too -- but it looks like it was already removed by Drmies. -Pete (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep--the editor didn't agree, to put it mildly. Hey Pete, how you doing? Drmies (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly I'm too disgusted to comment much on why the thing that Clinton will be remembered for long after he's dead and the US has dissolved doesn't rate even a subsection under public image. (There should be a "Ciminal allegations" major section for the various ones made.) But if he'd made even one snotty comment against certain powerful minority groups on Wikipedia it would be a big major subsection, as I've seen in so many other articles. Guess the Wikipedia Foundation Gender Gap project to bring more members of the majority sex into Wikipedia isn't doing too well. This sort of thing doesn't help. User:Carolmooredc  13:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Soapbox and smears at "certain powerful minority groups" wink-wink, we can't imagine who you mean, are out of place on this page. They are disruptive. Please stop and discuss content and policy if you disagree with the consensus here. SPECIFICO talk  14:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * POVs that form alleged consensuses are always relevant. See you are still following me to articles you've never edited to direct the same questionable refrains at me, per my July complaint at your talk page. Wikihounding is another reason a lot of women quit Wikipedia. User:Carolmooredc  14:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * [Insert] You don't speak for all women, User:Carolmooredc. Certainly not this Wiki-loving woman! Now, can we drop the personal banter and get to work on improving this article? Steeletrap (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are again insinuating that you will hound me off articles on my watch list due to my gender, you are mistaken and the threat is way out of bounds. SPECIFICO  talk  01:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That'll teach this uppity woman born woman. [Added later: But seriously SPECIFICO, I have no idea what is on your watchlist which is private. And I have no idea what your gender is since I haven't seen you mention it explicitly. ] User:Carolmooredc  04:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Carolmooredc, what exactly are you seeking to emphasize with "woman born woman" in contrast to me? At least have the courage to state an insult plainly. Steeletrap (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Supplied wikilink to feminist phrase. Article does need more refs. User:Carolmooredc  05:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to my identification as a (trans) female, User:Carolmooredc just linked to a page describing how trans women aren't authentic women (the entry is categorized under "transphobia"). She is entitled to her POV on this matter, but to make it personal and demean the gender identity of a fellow editor is completely unacceptable. (See: WP:PA) More importantly, Carol needs to cease her WP:tendentious editing on the Clinton page. The attack headers are simply egregious BLP violations. Steeletrap (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I really must start ignoring wikihounders. And what "attack headers" are we talking about? The one that was there a long time that I and another editor put back? The Womyn-born womyn article isn't very well written and doesn't really express exactly what I've meant. I've put some relevant refs and made some comments on the talk page. In any case, if you want to find real life transphobia to complain about, try the Chelsea Manning talk page. User:Carolmooredc  00:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You do seem to have gotten a little out of line here in my opinion. I think you may have meant a slight against the other editor but done in such a manner as to cast some doubt, but this is not that, or the Manning article and if you continue along this line of discussion you become closer and closer to personal attacks. So just drop it please and return to the discussion at hand. OK?-- Mark  02:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm finished with the discussion personally. Obviously sexual allegations vs. Clinton aren't a big deal on wikipedia. I know a lost cause when I see one. User:Carolmooredc  02:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a particularly important article given current American political events and agendas and the article is likely to remain actively edited through 2016. It is very unfortunate to project extraneous fringe controversies on it. SPECIFICO talk  02:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Leaving aside for the moment the question of how the article is divided into sections, there is of course a huge question of how to cover Clinton's public image in relation to his reputation for sexual improprieties and maybe worse. There are two things that stand out to me, and I wonder what others think: Thoughts about how to address either of these? -Pete (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead section correctly states that perjury and obstruction of justice were the grounds for impeachment; but it doesn't note that the underlying event was a sexual relationship. This is legally accurate, but to me it seems to fall short of capturing the way this played out in the media and the public consciousness. Is a change of some kind warranted?
 * Nowhere in the article is there mention of sex in relation to Lewinsky. The famous phrase from his testimony "I did not have sex with that woman" is not included. It would be easy to read this article without having any sense of the scope of their relationship. That seems like a problem to me.
 * It looks to me as if the article seems is in reasonably good shape. I see no reason to insert material of the kind you cite. The way this played out was that it was a giant fiasco for the vast right wing conspiracy and gave Gore a majority in the 2000 election.  Your phrase "and maybe worse" is unwarranted if not specified and cited and who the heck knows (or cares) about the "scope of their relationship" anyway?  Time has shown that the American public, for whom Clinton today stands as its most beloved and respected public figure, didn't give much of a hoot about all this.  The main lasting effect is that it will likely be cited by future historians as having propelled Hillary Rodham Clinton to the presidency in 2016.  I would not be concerned about adding more content or gratuitous POV headers here.   SPECIFICO  talk  19:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifico, I think you're reading things into my words that I wouldn't endorse. "Maybe worse" is a phrase I chose quickly here on the talk page, as a nod to good faith contributors who might find the phrase "impropriety" to be glossing over something important. I don't know what the best phrase is; but what I do know is that a great deal of coverage in reliable sources, spanning decades, has discussed this issue from other angles besides the legal and the political. Whether or not you or I think it's appropriate, Clinton's sex life has become an important element of the public's perception of him. Not the one defining element, but an important one. I don't think it'a appropriate -- or, to be more specific, I don't think it's an accurate reflection of the coverage he has received in reliable sources -- to leave the issue out of the article. I think your claim "time has shown that the American public…didn't give much of a hoot about all this" reflects a strong POV; while there are many people -- who knows, maybe even a strong majority -- who feel that way, that is not a valid argument for excluding events that received major media coverage entirely from the article. -Pete (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am no expert on biography or Clinton, but I searched the article and it returned 14 instances of "sex" in the text. How does that compare with JFK, Arafat, Castro, and others?  SPECIFICO  talk  21:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm perplexed -- how does this relate to either of my points? -Pete (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there's ample mention of "sex" in this bio. In fact it seems to me that there is currently excessive mention, given that Clinton has no particular notability or expertise in the area. SPECIFICO  talk  16:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Government Shutdown
Shouldn't we at least mention the 1995 government shutdown? -- Bertrc (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Editsemiprotected
Please replace and statues do homage him with and statues do him homage. 2001:18E8:2:1020:C859:EE71:4139:1FA3 (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Why did this request force me to do the captcha?  I didn't add any ELs.  2001:18E8:2:1020:C859:EE71:4139:1FA3 (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- the statement has been re-worded for clarity. Thanks for catching that.--JayJasper (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK ?
I don't want to get in a reversion war when I am not an expert on the topic. this edit reverted my earlier reversion. and I seem to disagree on this. I will call in some experts on the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the revert of that contribution which seemed to contain links to very parisan articles. Republican revolution? Other links are not needed as they are in the article already elsewhere. Some stuff seems like it would be uncontroversial to return while other stuff should remain off the page. Please discuss this and not just look outside the article for input before a discussion is actually made here.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd put back the links to lists by age & succession, & the Vietnam link; the Republican Revolution might be a bit POV, but that's how it was characterized & that's when it happened. (Not having read the page, if it's more about why & how than when, I'd delete it, too.)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Many of those links violate the guidelines on link clarity, easter eggs, and dates (WP:LINKCLARITY, WP:EGG, MOS:UNLINKDATES). Also, it is not necessary to link American or United States in the English Wikipedia. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain your individual objections to each of the following that I would like to restore to the article:
 * 42nd
 * third-youngest president
 * Senator from New York
 * Governor of Arkansas
 * 1992
 * won control
 * impeached
 * scandal involving a White House intern
 * 2008
 * 2012
 * Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service
 * mayor of Dallas
 * governor of Texas

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * , please comment on these items individually by the end of the month or I will do a wholesale reversion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have stated on your talk page, I will be reverting these soon since you have failed to respond to my February request to discuss your changes in detail.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not been around and just saw your messages. I will try to respond soon. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am trying to be patient.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been a month and you have not been willing to discuss your changes. I am about to revert.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been patient. I am now going to revert.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I admire your patience, in waiting to restore these hyperlinks. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2013
[¶3, line 5] Please replace: "he was impeached for perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice during a lawsuit against him" with: "Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury before a grand jury pursuant to a lawsuit against him" [Reason: confusing and unclear antecedent basis]

Hokiewalker (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Technical 13 (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Fiscal conservative
In the Presidency, 1993–2001 section we describe his political leaning as such: Some of his policies ... have been attributed to a centrist Third Way philosophy of governance, while on other issues his stance was left-of-center. He was also known to be a fiscal conservative. Bob Woodward discusses his conservative-leanings in this regard. Talking about Greenspan's view of Clinton, Woodward tells us that Greenspan describes Clinton as having "preference for dealing in facts," and "presents Clinton and himself almost as soul mates." Woodward writes: "The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world." Shortly after, Greenspan, in an interview, "called Clinton 'the best Republican president we've had in a while.'" Some explicit statement should be made of his conservatism on fiscal matters. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * IMHO, this is one voice and an outlier at that. Its a known fact that Clinton's "fiscal policies" were often times engineered by a Republican lead Congress (welfare, etc) so is this "his policies" or something that he needed to sign to "pay" for the Republican's to bend on his social policies? Considering he was also for "HillaryCare" which although a social policy, would have been a large increase in financial expenditures. I also read Greenspan's comments as the realization that Clinton presided over more conservative fiscal times than either Bush the older or younger, but again alot of that has to do with the Congress that these presidents had to work with (although W was certainly no fiscal hawk - especially at the end). Certainly an interesting discussion. Ckruschke (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Interesting point! There is a question of what he did from disposition and what he did because congressional powers decided otherwise. Greenspan, and this article both say he started immediately upon taking office on a policy of fiscal conservatism. True, he favored tax increases instead of spending cuts, but that is still a path to fiscal conservatism. Greenspan notes that he was willing to face reality. He got similar advice from Robert Rubin. Our article, Fiscal_conservatism has him in this category. While being a fiscal conservative by paying "one's bills" via tax hikes isn't the same as achieve deficit reductions by spending cuts, it sill isn't the Krugman type of Keynsian policy of debt-fueled spending stimulus. Let's remember that Clinton inherited a weak economy from the recession of '90 and he choose to limit deficits. He ended his 8 years in the black, a rare occurrence in recent federal finance. If Greenspan is an outlier, and I'm not sure he is, he is a mighty big one. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed to a point. Tax increases are very easily, and often, used to pay for more spending (see the states of California and New York as two big examples) so this is a far way from furthering your point on him being a fiscal hawk. Bottomline is that you've asked for a very small change and I'm not inclined to block it. I would just however put in the caveat that his fiscal policies were entwined with those of Congress - good or bad. Use your best discretion and I'm sure it will be fine. Ckruschke (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I propose a simple insertion after “… on other issues his stance was left-of-center.” I propose: On budgetary matters his policy of fiscal conservatism helped to reduce deficits. This is an introduction to the subsequent sections on his Presidency and further exposition would be unwarranted. Perhaps this can be fleshed-out in a subsequent section or on the article devoted to his Presidency. Actually, the second paragraph in the “First Term” section of Presidency of Bill Clinton explains his fiscal conservatism. By the way, his first secretary of the treasury, Lloyd Benson was also known for his fiscal conservatism and Rubin was already an advisor. The "Presidency" article does note that this was his policy from the start (and thus two years before Newt took over Congress.)  Jason from nyc (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Ckruschke (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Picture needs to be updated
The picture is from a long time ago. How do I check exactly what time? Anyway, update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.43.18 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1 January 1993. The information is in the metadata on the image page. We could use an updated image. What are the thoughts of other editors?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The official portraits produced by the White House Press Office are preferred for the infobox, contemporary images can be used in other sections of the article. Tarc (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Lede changes
The lede omits some important details and includes some unimportant details. For instance: no need to explain what Phi Beta Kappa signifies; statement that Clinton presided over "longest period of economic expansion in US history" needs to be referenced and in any case doesn't belong in a discussion of his first term; instead, the 1993 deficit reduction act, which was very important and groundbreaking at the time, should be included; welfare reform should be linked to the specific legislation; SCHIP does not need to be qualified with an explanation that it "[provided] health care to millions of children", as that statement has a biased tone, is not specific nature of health care, is not specific on number of recipients, and no other legislation discussed in lede has a similar explanation; finally, it is inaccurate to say that Clinton played a prominent role campaigning for Obama in 2008, he only did so in 2012.

I made changes to rectify all of these issues but they were reverted. I am prepared to add them again. Input is appreciated. Trayvon1 (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of the other changes, I'd agree there's no need to explain what Phi Beta Kappa is in the lead of this article. I'd even suggest there is no need to mention it in the lead at all.  Calidum  Talk To Me 05:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * was the one who decided to revert all of my edits. He can state his objections here; otherwise, I will go ahead and re-insert them. Trayvon1 (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd agree there's no need to explain what Phi Beta Kappa is as well. But that is the only change I support.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

--Mark Miller (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "statement that Clinton presided over "longest period of economic expansion in US history" needs to be referenced", Not in the lede. Basically we do not reference the lede. The statement is in the body of the article and is sufficiently referenced with inline citations to reliable sources (although History.com is a tad weaker than the other sources, it is still acceptable).
 * "in any case doesn't belong in a discussion of his first term; instead, the 1993 deficit reduction act, which was very important and groundbreaking at the time, should be included". You want to remove excessive detail one minute and then want to add further excessive detail in the same edit? That makes no sense. The simpler statement covers the acts that are responsible, but some further mention could be added as long as it was not too detailed. The lede does not mention a first or second term.
 * "welfare reform should be linked to the specific legislation". Not really. Piping such content can be controversial and contentious and I simply don't support doing such things on these types of articles. Links should be limited to the specific articles the word or phrase has and we should avoid piped links unless there is no specific article and consensus agrees on the article to link.
 * "SCHIP does not need to be qualified with an explanation that it "[provided] health care to millions of children", as that statement has a biased tone". No, the State Children's Health Insurance Program does require a qualifier and the tone is not is not biased in anyway...it is the children's health insurance program after all and the results are accurate. I see some POV in your editing.
 * "it is inaccurate to say that Clinton played a prominent role campaigning for Obama in 2008, he only did so in 2012". It doesn't say that and he did campaign for Obama in 2008.

Acquittal = Not Impeached!
Clinton was not impeached, he was called to stand trial against articles of impeachment while such accusations were being investigated; But merely standing trial does not equate to imprisonment per guilt of committing the accused crime. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Since Clinton was found 'Not Guilty' and thereby promptly acquitted on all charges, there is no conviction and impeachment is dissolved.

It is clearly stated in the following rules of the Senate -

''"The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official is removal from office." ''

As well as in The Constitution itself -

''"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.--U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 4." .''

Since Clinton, in fact, was NOT removed from office (a Constitutional mandate imposed on impeached officials), he could not be said to have been impeached. The definition of the term is more broad and loosely defined anywhere else in the world but in the U.S., the term 'impeachment' is Constitutionally bound to definitively and specifically mean "to be removed from office."

Even if you apply the term only in it's broadest sense, the statement that Clinton is the second president to be impeached is still completely incorrect. Richard Nixon was actually the second President to be called under investigation through official impeachment proceedings, if the definition is taken to mean merely "being charged of suspected crimes", making Clinton, then, the third President to face the same. Either way, to state that Clinton was the second U.S. President to be impeached is misinformation. I am removing the sentence that is misleading for these very reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skj91 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you've misunderstood your own second source. Article 2.4 of the Constitution, as you quote it, says:


 * "on impeachment for and conviction of treason" [emphasis mine] implying that the two processes (impeachment and conviction) are separate.


 * The OED definition of "impeach" agrees with this:


 * "impeach, v. 5a. spec. To accuse of treason or other high crime or misdemeanour (usually against the state) before a competent tribunal"


 * In this sense, Nixon was not impeached: he resigned before proceedings started. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

New Section
Why is this not present under William Jefferson Clinton?

Section: 5.1.01 Main Cause of the Great Recession of 2008-2010

Some economists have pointed to deregulation efforts as contributing to the collapse.[146][147][148] In 1999, the Republican controlled 106th Congress U.S. Congress under the Clinton administration passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act) and President William Jefferson Clinton signed the Act into Law in November 1999. The GLB Act repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act (GS Act) of 1933. This repeal has been criticized by some for having contributed to the proliferation of the complex and opaque financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis.[149] After all, it was the partial repeal of the GS Act which permitted the conglomeration of Banks, Financial agencies and Mortgage companies with one another and the creation of subprime lending which led directly to the housing crisis.

This information was taken from the Glass Steagall (GS) Act article and appears to be an important addition to the Clinton files so LINK can be created between the GS and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Acts. The three of these elements (Clinton and the two Acts) are SO closely linked that I don't see how these can be left out (as it currently is). Was this done purposefully??

2601:7:9600:78E:644C:C83:DD0E:38DC (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)greg.


 * Not relevant to Clinton's biography, perhaps more suited for Presidency of Bill Clinton. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Extramarital relationships / Sexual assault allegations
Why isn't there a section for sexual assault allegations? Obviously many political and public figures are easy targets for such accusations, but the list on The Honorable Bill Clinton is well documented and substantiated. Wouldn't it be possible for a well-sourced, neutral entry to be written? Our.weakness (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sexual assault? You'd have to provide valid, reliable sources for that (I'm not talking about WorldNetDaily). I believe all of his dalliances were consensual. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Juanita Broadrick and Kathleen Willey come to mind, but Paula Jones as well. Maybe a better section would be "Extramarital relationships" as per the JFK article. A section that could cover Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen. Granted, some of these are interspersed throughout the article already, but given the number of dalliances and accusations, I feel a section would be vital to a clear understanding of his public image. --Our.weakness (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Public image of Bill Clinton, which is linked to at Bill Clinton, already covers this. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Suspended Law License and Fine by District Court
I had my updated deleted by "tarq" who said they were 'right wing'. I included citations from the contemperaneous AP reporting on the event, and the statement released by Clinton himself at the time he surrendered his law license. It is a historical FACT that he was fined $90,000 by a US District Court Judge, and that he had is law license suspended in Arkansas as a result of her referral to the Arkansas Bar Association.

Your attempting to re-write history, and have the comment of CLinton's lawyer stand as the last word on this.

That is truly a Stalinist way of trying to rewrite history to support your heros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You gave an unreasonable and inaccurate amount of detail to the matter, which is better and more succinctly covered already at Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was never disbarred from the practice of law, there was a mutual agreement to suspect his law license in AK for 5 yrs, which automatically removed his right to practice before the Supreme Court, that is all.  It was never as big a deal as the now ~15-yr-old right-wing talking point memos made it out to be.  That sort of nonsense will not be appearing in this article. Tarc (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to even mention it in his bio: yet, it's reasonable to have a quote from his attorney that whitewashes the whole matter? You prefer partisan opinions to simple facts, court determined facts, at that. What sets Clinton's criminality apart from other Presidents is that it was adjudicated, both in the Senate, where he was found not-guilty, and in the Civil case, where he paid a substantial fine and agreed to surrender his law license.

Only a partisan without the ability to honestly assess NPV would claim that those legal facts don't belong in his bio.

24.22.76.12 (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a Democrat who voted for Clinton twice. I believe that the fact he agreed to a five-year suspension of his law license merits inclusion in his main bio article.  In a typical lawyer's bio, it would get significant coverage.  For a President, there's so much else that's important that this would get squeezed down to one sentence, or part of a sentence if it can be spliced into the impeachment discussion -- but it should be in here. JamesMLane t c 08:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tarc has said he will not permit it to be mentioned here. "That sort of nonsense will not be appearing in this article. Tarc (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)" He is apparently willing to over rule the consensus of commentators on the talk page, and revert edits to ensure his POV stands.

Trivia map that shouldn't be in this kind of article
In my opinion, the map with the legend Countries visited by President Clinton during his terms in office should be deleted. It's meaningless high-school quiz type trivia that does not bring anything to the article. It does not belong to an encyclopedic article on this nature.--Lubiesque (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Impeachment?
Doesn't there have to be an actual conviction and not just an indictment? As far as I knew, he didn't actually get impeached? Even in the article it mentions that a super majority was not reached. Would someone please verify and clarify this in the article? Otherwise, it's hugely misleading. 2601:1:9280:155:214:85FF:FE15:4B0D (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Impeach", in the context of American politics, simply means to accuse or to charge someone with wrongdoing. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what impeach means in American politics. Bill Clinton was indeed impeached, wherein the legislative body (Congress) formally  voted and officially declared him fit for removal from office.  However, there's a follow-up process to actually remove the impeached individual from office, and Congress didn't follow up on it, never intending to actually removed him from office.  Yet, he was impeached.  The accusations themselves weren't an impeachment.  Nixon had lots of accusations regarding Watergate, but he wasn't impeached.  He resigned before it ever got that far.  98.221.141.21 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. Congress The House brings charges, the Senate hears and decides upon the merits of the charges.  It's not complicated. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The House of Representatives brings charges. Remember, the House & Senate make up Congress. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yea, was in a bit of a word mix-up there. Fixed. Tarc (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Typo in 3rd Paragraph
"First" is misspelled: "... the fiurst from the baby boomer generation"

I would have fixed but the page is locked for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.247.177 (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. Dustin  ( talk ) 04:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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


 * Invoking Bart Simpson...If this isn't a block-worthy example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I'll eat my shorts. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Do you not agree that high-level sources universally reference him as "William Jefferson"? It's worth discussing. Pandeist (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this is not block-worthy and if I were treated in the same way, I would take offense. All that aside, why not provide actual counter-reasoning? I'm not currently taking a position or saying that I agree with what either of you say, but seriously, invoking WP:POINT just because someone disagrees with you is disruptive in itself. Dustin  ( talk ) 18:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look -- here, according to Commons, is his own signature as "William J. Clinton" taken from one of his bills signed: [[File:William J Clinton signature.svg]].... Pandeist (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So, signatures imply a preferred name? Curious.  Can you reconcile your call to rename the Hillary Rodham Clinton article to Hillary Clinton when her signature appears as thus; [[File:Hillary Rodham Clinton Signature.svg]] ? Tarc (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh sweet Tarc -- the question is all about reconciliation. It is about reconciling the title of this page with the inconsistent special preference given another. Why would we not address William Jefferson as he is universally treated by high level biographers, by several other encyclopedias, and in numerous high-profile situations by his very own hand? I wish to reconcile the disparate segregation of these flipsides to a decades-long pairing. Pandeist (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Only my mistress calls me "sweet", first off. Second, you didn't answer the question, so let's try again;
 * "High-level biographers" and his "own hand" go by "William Jefferson Clinton", so you wish his article title to be "William Jefferson Clinton" rather than "Bill Clinton"
 * "High-level biographers" and her "own hand" go by "Hillary Rodham Clinton", so you wish her article title to be "Hillary Clinton" rather than "Hillary Rodham Clinton".
 * Explain the different treatment. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The different treatment is the situation as it stands. If high-level biographies and significant signatures are to be counted above other factors (and search engine numbers discounted) then both articles ought to be at their formal names -- William Jefferson and Hillary Rodham. If the common man's usage is to prevail, then both titles ought to be at their dinner-table names, simply Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Pandeist (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you propose this here and support a name change there, then that is a blatant hypocrisy that you still refuse to admit. Tarc (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense. Bill's middle name is "Jefferson". Hillary's middle name is "Diane". Hillary Rodham was Hillary's family name, thus her name, for a long long time, and she had many accomplishments before marrying Bill and changing her name to Hillary Rodham Clinton (reluctantly if what I read is true). So if Rodham is her family name, not her middle name, it's apples and mailboxes, or cuttlefish and oranges. They are two different species of names. p.s. Interesting how the "Clinton" in both their signatures looks extremely alike in some aspects, and different in others, but some strokes are pretty close there. Randy Kryn 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But the issue is what they are called in high-level biographies, not how they came called that. Insofar as bios toss search engine hits. Pandeist (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support current title Bill is his common name, and the page should be kept at its current title. However, zero harm in discussing it; the discussion is NOT disruptive.  p  b  p  21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's not a proposal yet -- we're yet uncovering the facts!! Pandeist (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The following paragraph contains (potentially helpful and applicable) mockery
Because Encyclopedia Britannica and every other encyclopedia of note uses the article titles "Jimmy Carter," "Bill Clinton," "Hillary Rodham Clinton," "Golda Meir," and "Cristina Fernández de Kirchner," we must not follow their lead. Why not? Because only encyclopedia-makers do those elitist intellectual things like give more weight to certain sources. Those dorky eggheads at Britannica probably give excessive consideration to the names that people use as authors of their own published works, the names that people use in their own autobiographies, the names that people prefer in their encyclopedia entries, and the choices of other encyclopedias. That's the ultimate in intellectual incest. Why can't they just ignore stupid things like books and do a google count to reach decisions like we do? Ideas need to be subordinate to google counts in the 21st century, Britannica! Just learn from us. Our goal should be to remove Britannica's inconsistencies and create a level playing field where nobody receives special preference. The name used in my favorite blog by this smart kid Timothy from five miles down the road should count just the same as an autobiography written by the article's subject. (Yay for Timothy! Nice blog, Timothy! There's one google count for the name used by Timothy! Woo! Autobiography names? You suck!) Some encyclopedias might even take the distinction between men's middle names and women's birth names into account in their decisions. Obviously, real-world encyclopedias have far too many female editors. We don't have to follow their lead. We don't even have to be an encyclopedia at all. We could create something entirely new and finally discard our outdated encyclopedia label entirely by fully embracing a new term for our over-politicized, over-argumentative, mostly male and often obsessive nutjob brand. Removing the intellectual burden of being an encyclopedia from Wikipedia would have a positive impact on donations in the short term, and it would lead to fewer disputes where people have to do all that hard stuff like wear thinking caps. Man, who would want to read this long paragraph? TL;DR, dude. Flying Jazz (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Predicted replies: "uhhh...so you're making fun of the idea because you just don't like it, right?" "Why don't you cite policy?" Flying Jazz (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And would you agree User:Flying Jazz that most high-level biographies (lengthy books at that, of much more substance than Britannica's pages muster) use "William Jefferson Clinton"? I take your screed as endorsing this formal name as used in such sources, and in many encyclopedias as well. Pandeist (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The distinctions among "formal usage," "common man's usage," "plainness," and "regalness" is something you want to discuss for reasons that seem to have nothing to do with encyclopedia-building. Perhaps it's a rhetorical tactic. Maybe it's some misplaced desire for consistency or you have some political agenda. I don't know.
 * My screed gives precedence to the names used in other encyclopedias. For politicians, these tend to be the names used in their autobiographies and memoirs.
 * A high-level biography may use a different name than an autobiography/memoir in order to suit the author or publisher of that biography, not the subject. That's why the biographer's editorial decision about the name isn't relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. It would be relevant to an encyclopedia article about the book.
 * On the other hand, because a naming decision in an autobiography/memoir was made by the subject, that editorial decision does have something to do with the subject and that autobiographer's choice is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject AND ALSO about the book.
 * The counterargument to this way of thinking involves citing times and places when the subject used a different name from the one used in his or her autobiography or memoir. This counterargument misses the unique role of autobiographies/memoirs in encyclopedia-making and bibliography (in the sense of library science). Autobiographies/memoirs inform encyclopedia-makers about how the subject presents his or her name as a simultaneously cited author and subject without the explicit other purposes of campaign literature or signatures.
 * That's why sane encyclopedias weigh autobiographies/memoirs for naming decisions to such a great extent. It's because that name is how the author/subject has cited himself or herself purely as an author/subject.
 * But at Wikipedia, that obvious bibliographically sound dual-role self-citation is merely another opportunity to over-politicize, over-argue, and dehumanize the subject, especially politicians. It's misrepresented by nitwits as something the subject wants for their encyclopedia article or for posterity instead of as a uniquely useful bibliographic resource that can and should also serve as an article name. Of course, at the current Hillary renaming debate, a preference was apparently given to Wikipedia about her article name. But that's not the case here.
 * The policy at WP:COMMONNAME should be tweaked in my view to give additional weight to the names of people as used in the titles of autobiographies/memoirs, if one is available and if a common name is used there. This would give editors an explanation about one reason why "other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful" to reach naming decisions. The more Wikipedia editors understand about encyclopedic decision-making, the less wackiness there will be. After this wackiness is over, maybe I'll try to talk to folks over there about tweaking the policy. But I'm not optimistic about the outcome. Flying Jazz (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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


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


 * I concur with Tarc; they likely don't have enough to stand on their own. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Propose adding a See also: Clinton (surname) hatnote or similar to the page
The current Wikipedia situation (within context of the real world situation that I will attempt to present below) I allege places undue emphasis on marital and naming issues in regard to Hillary ... Clinton.
 * In a south UK location, when I Google "clinton" on either .co.uk or .com I get a Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia listing on the left of the screen. ‎Hillary Rodham Clinton is reduced to a sublink on the Bill listing via .co.uk and no listing for Hillary is presented in the .com search results.
 * The right hand side of the .co.uk "clinton" google results page displays reference to, first, and secondly .  The right hand side of the .com "clinton" google results page is in some ways better presenting Hillary Rodham Clinton Former First Lady of the United States.  The prominent "billing" (that was unintentioned) given to Hillary here, I think, warranted in that Hillary Clinton related topics are highly referenced.  However I don't see that a reference as "Former First Lady" is particularly flattering in the context that she is also a former secretary of state and a presidential nominee.
 * After searching on "clinton" a reader may potentially click on the Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia links a reader is then presented with a sea of text. A page search on "Hillary" will then lead to, first, "Spouse(s) Hillary Rodham (m. 1975)" and then to "He is married to Hillary Clinton".  In the context of a major search engine that defined HRC(HC) in association to Bill, I think disproportionate attention is already placed on marital and name issues.  Most readers looking, in these times, for HC related materials, I think, will be doing so in relation to her as being a candidate running for presidency and yet they are presented with marriage related contents on repeat.  In the context of various (alleged) prejudices in the US, this may well be damaging to Clinton in the eyes of many.
 * I think that these perceived problems could be circumvented by the addition of a hatnote such as:


 * This would at least give readers a readily clickable link which would give them access to Hillary related content without the need to click into another search box, start typing and then either click again or hit return and I think that the addition of a hatnote as mentioned, in the real world context mentioned, would increase the reader friendliness of the page.
 * Ping
 * GregKaye 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD of note

 * Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies.

Neutral notice being places on both Talk:Bill Clinton and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton Tarc (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham
The issue of spouse names was discussed at the infobox talk page a month ago. The documentation was even changed. Consensus then was to have the common name or the article name used, not the pre-marriage name. Note that the infobox says spouse, not "married". If y'all are staunchly opposed, I'll start an RfC on the topic for more input if you'd like.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see a discussion, but I don't see a declared consensus or a closure of the discussion with consensus. And yes, I'm staunchly opposed to the surname being Clinton when it's not reflected in the article and it makes no logical sense.  He married Hillary Rodham, not Hillary Clinton.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, the box says "spouse" not "person they married". His spouse is Hillary Clinton. And that's what she's referred to in the article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We probably need to have a wider consensus on this because the other POTUS should line up too, but they don't. Obama's wife is listed as Michelle Obama but JFK's is listed as Bouvier. FDR's wife is Eleanor Roosevelt but John Adams' is listed as Abigail Smith. Calidum T&#124;C 17:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, true that. I'll start an RfC a bit later today. Gotta go run some errands.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Er . . . Eleanor Roosevelt was also her name before she was married. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I looked at the presidential navboxes as well and they are all over the place, but it looks like the majority of them list the name of the woman at the time that he married her, her maiden name (maybe someone can do a full survey of all the U.S. presidents, I have to sign off soon). Thus Hillary Rodham is as reasonable as Abigail Smith, who John Adams married. As a wider discussion, maybe it can be summarized better, and since it looks like a full discussion will take place I think the maiden name is the way to go, as it has in the past on presidential infoboxes. Guess it depends solely on the definition of 'spouse', and the discussion should include a decision of what millisecond in time does one name become another name. What do sources say a spouse is (depending on what the meaning of the word "is" is, to quote a wise and/or sneaky man). Do they say spouse is the present marriage partner only, or that it includes the entire term of the marriage since the ceremony, a ceremony which would have started out with Hillary Rodham walking down the aisle and Hillary Rodham Clinton walking back. So does the entire ceremony hinge on the transfer of title (i.e. the name of the male participant in the spousehood now gives his wife the principal name, with her maiden name seldom to be spoken of again, except on all her books and job titles) from the wife to the husband, including her former name, so at what legal moment of that two-person-becoming-one during the ceremony does this occur, when her dad gives her away? Randy Kryn 18:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The legal moment occurs when the paperwork to change the name is filed and approved afaik. Nothing in the ceremony.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, if you are looking for the legal moment with Hillary Rodham, it never happened because she did not take his name, when they married. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Do you have a source handy? Did she ever legally take his name, tax filings and all? Randy Kryn 21:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, seriously. She did not take his name when they married, and was not required to file any paperwork to "allow" her to retain her own name. (Here's a source on a quick look for you, Randy - there may be better ones.) In New York, for example, the name you use consistently is your name - you can use your husband's name or your own, but you have to be consistent for it to be your legal name. The IRS has always been very understanding about this, by the way - no special filings needed. Tvoz / talk 22:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Then, of course, Bill Clinton's spouse is Hillary Rodham, under at least two definitions and probably more. Randy Kryn 2:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have started an RfC on this topic. It can be found at Template_talk:Infobox_person.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you started an Rfc why didn't you direct it to this talk page, where the question is being discussed already. I see you are against using maiden names. Please post the discussion to this page as well, thanks. Randy Kryn 21:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Link posted.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)