Talk:Clinton-Gore Administration

Much of this information is copied verbatim from http://www.americanhistory.or.kr/book/files/ethirteen07.html. RickK 00:20, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but it comes straight from Wikipedia's 1992 election passge. Don't pin it on me      ChrisDJackson

I've restored the article. If someone thinks that a portion comes from the copyright infringement policy DOES NOT call for removing the whole article but only the possibly infringing portion. Please follow the possible infringement policy and only remove those possibly infringing portions. Jamesday 23:59, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Crossposting wikipedia articles is a very bad move. Much of the content of this article was either from U.S. presidential election, 1992, Bill Clinton. The rest was hopelessly POV. Therefore, I have redirected the page, like all the other administration titles. It will stay redirected unless someone comes up with something that is 1) no duplicated elsewhere on WP and 2) NPOV. --Jia ng 00:48, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Where's the content on the administration policies which was in this article but isn't in the article you redirected it to? That sort of administration detail doesn't belong in the article on Clinton but does belong in an article on his administration. If you think it's POV, revising the content is the way to go, not removing the 15 pages of administration content because of 3 pages of partially duplicated content (pages here = page down keys on my browser). The article definitely needs a lot of work, though - it reads like a PR piece, not a NPOV review of the activities of the administration. Not a surprise when the text on the administration accomplishments is from an archived copy of the public domain Clinton Whitehouse page, archived at the National Archives. Jamesday 10:02, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think we should have administration articles, but for this to occur, we must revise the U.S. presidents template. Currently, there's an article on the Bush Administration, but it is just a list of cabinet members. Let's first develop a standard on what to include and what not to include. What belongs only in the biography? What belongs only in the adminstration article?

The POV text posted is hardly salvageable. It's much simpler, IMO, to just start from scratch. I'm afraid that if we leave it there, we will forever be left with User:ChrisDJackson's POV junk. Anyone want to volunteer to clean it up?

If we keep this article, it should be at Clinton Administration, which recieves 30000 (?) more google hits than this title. --Jia ng 00:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nothing at all unusual with starting with POV material. It's probably fair to say that we can expect some Clinton opponents and neutral or non-US people to be interested in adjusting the POV and there's little doubt that some significant work of that sort is needed.:) Still, the POV version does provide an outline of some of the topics which are worth mentioning, so it's not totally useless, IMO, even though the end result won't look much like what was here before. Agreed on the name change but it seems like a good idea to let the article to stay here and be worked on for a week or two rather than make more changes - it's already been a bit too active on the non-content side and going slowly is good for controversial topics. The Presidential template should probably wait until we have some material on a few administrations, so people can see things after the inevitiable arguing about the content has happened and after the usual discussion and argument has sorted out what people think is important. Would you like to make some suggestions here, to help those who end up working on this one? One certainty is that I'm not going to do much editing here - it's not the sort of topic I generally like to work on. Jamesday 01:56, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Since ChrisDJackson posted the same exact text at Clinton Administration, I think we should just revive that page, have this page redirect there, and move this talk page over to that one. I don't see why we shouldn't move it.

I will delete any repeated text and we can bring up this article at both cleanup (re:POV mess) and the village pump (re:template). --Jia ng 03:09, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Jamesday 13:52, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements
January 2, 2004


 * Clinton-Gore Administration contains verbatim passages from, not sure if all is a copy vio or just parts. Maximus Rex 04:18, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * The same text also exists in the history of Clinton Administration, which currently redirects to Bill Clinton. Maximus Rex 04:22, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * The link on the C-G page clearly states that it is from a public domain. The McNair article was written by me this time, not JockBios.  What is the problem? McNair article is now a new one written by me.  Clinton Gore administration text come verbatim from Wikipedia's passage on 1992 election here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992 --ChrisDJackson
 * Delete and redirect to Bill Clinton (where clinton administration redirect). It's inapporiate, even if not copyvio, since it's a biography of Bill Clinton. --Jiang 07:56, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * If it was from a government site, please give us the link. We should not cross-post wikipedia content in different places. --Jiang
 * The US National Archives and Records Office archive of the Clinton Whitehouse page at is the source of the accompishments portion of the article. It is a US federal government work, so is in the public domain. Jamesday 10:46, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * The Clinton-Gore page better not get deleted. We can have one of each admin over time.  That page has nothing to do with Bill Clinton's bio.  It clearly states the elections and their accomplishments/appointments/legislation, ect. I have already gave the link and it is on the page itself: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/history/ch13.htm#1992
 * Agreed on keeping it and having one of these for each administration, though it seems unlikely that an archived copy of a Clinton-Gore whitehouse accomplishments page presented a neutral point of view, so the article does need NPOV work. :) Jamesday 10:46, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Which specific portions need blanking as possible copyright infringements - there's no apparent possibility that the whole page is one, so it doesn't all need to be removed. Absent a specific possibly infringing passage to consider (and remove if infringing), this looks to me like political opponents of Clinton trying to get a useful article about the administration (rather than the person) removed through a bogus infringement claim. Jamesday 23:54, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * This one appears to be resolved, since the source text is actually from the federal government site and in the public domain. Jamesday 08:39, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)