Talk:The Clinton Chronicles

Clinton Body Count
I corrected the sentence about the Clinton Body Count coming later after the film. The first "Clinton Body Counts" began circulating the internet in the Summer of 1993, and seems to have inspired the film, not the other way around. wikipediatrix 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit miss leading to represent the Clinton Body Count being debunked in a way that infers the documentary has been debunked. The last 3 minutes of the film scrolls the names of the Clinton Body Count, without narration; The film is 103 minutes long. The caption sayes:

Since August 1991 an alarming number of Clinton associates have died of unnatural causes, The following is a partial list 

So what is actually debunked? They are dead? Being decapitated or shot is not an unnatural cause? 72.199.225.183 (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD
This article is being considered for deletion. See Articles for deletion/Clinton Chronicles.

Since the AfD discussion started, I've added the WaPo and NYT links found by Derex to the article. If we retain this article, we would need to fix the last 2 paras of the "Controversy and criticism" section. Cheers, CWC (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was Keep.--Tbeatty 16:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the 'box description' which was in violation of BLP. Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tbeatty, I removed the box discription again. You YOURSELF said we don't REPEAT unfounded allegations or BLP violations here, and argued against your current line of editing on Larry Craig. You also said  I think the video is notable but not the allegations. The box description contains the disproven allegations which are a violation of Pres Clinton's BLP rights. I will take it to BLP the next time its reinserted. Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com?
Is this serious or a joke? This is an article about a right-wing conspiracy theory drummed up by extremeists on the right... according to the article at least. To debunk this, they cite Salon.com, a radical LEFT-wing group. Add the Washington Post, New York Times, and other Leftist organizations and it makes you wonder. Now, you'd think there would be a resource out there that was somewhere under the tall part of the bell curve of politics that could address this. Otherwise, this article has ZERO credibility. --Asams10 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Salon.com is hardly "radical" and the NYT is hardly leftist. Regardless of what you think of them, Salon, the Washington Post and the New York Times are valid sources under WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 18:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that Salon is far, far to the left. NYT is also leftist.  There's nothing wrong with that, but it's true.  The USA is split near the center politically.  52-48 for Obama, 51 to 49 for Bush over Kerry.  Yet Salon and NYT both were nearly unanimous in supporting Kerry and Obama.  An analysis of what the NYT of Salon covers and editorializes is always much closer to the left's POV than the right's.

Again, there's nothing wrong with it, and I agree that the NYT is just as credible as Fox News (albeit, Fox News probably employs more democrats than NYTs employs Republicans) or the WSJ.

that's not to say that the clintons really did mastermind this ridiculous conspiracy. 74.196.117.56 (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Clinton Body Count Insertion Absurd
"I corrected the sentence about the Clinton Body Count coming later after the film."

Wow so you made a mistake due to faulty research? Big surprise.

"The first "Clinton Body Counts" began circulating the internet in the Summer of 1993, and seems to have inspired the film,"

This is an ecyclopedia not a speculation board for your speculations.

Snopes is a joke on top of it, snopes is not made by anyone citting any evidence that the witnesses on this film are not credible. You are smearing on purpose, cut it out. The snopes article is so absurd that it claims that the file on clinton made by an officer could not be found therefore it's not credible that he was assassinated. What the hell kind of stupid reasoning is that? ON TOP OF THAT IT SAYS ON THE FILM THE FILE WAS STOLEN.

"Largely debunked"? SAYS WHO? WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE IT WAS LARGELY DEBUNKED? That one sophist snopes article? THAT'S IT? OH NO WAIT YOUR "IT SEEMS".

?

GET REAL. YOU DO NOT DISCREDIT WITNESSES WITH YOUR OWN URBAN MYTH CRAP.

CITE EVIDENCE THAT THE WITNESSES ARE LYING NOT SPECULATIVE ARTICLES TRYING TO PASS THEMSELVES OFF AS TRUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.26.119 (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has serious problems. I just watched "The Clinton Chronicles" and it covers much more than just the Vince Foster case, but also Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and related topics of Clinton corruption which include the very document CIA drug smuggling activities that involve Barry Seal in Mena. Bofors7715 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is severely biased and the reference to Snopes.com should be incidental at the most. To leave the debunking of this film to snopes.com is inappropriate - this should be the place to address specific claims made in the film. Snopes is not subject to the same peer-criticism as Wikipedia. Let's break this article down into specific claims and accusations made in this film and the counter-claims made in response, rather than essentially closing the discussion because Snopes is the supreme authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.116.43 (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell
I doubt he went back on the contents of the film? With his death And the un-cited nature of that quote should we give him the benefit of the doubt?

Sure the 'facts' presented in the film ARE likely unfounded.. I couldn't agree more.. and in all honesty he had to have known that. However, given his profession and his active participation.. and in light of his death could we remove the quote until it is cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.232.99 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources is the video. He says it during his interview in the video. VLARKer7 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Clinton Chronicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/cov_11news.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Producer sued
FYI, while attempting to clean up this article a bit I ran across several internet references that mention the producer of this film was sued by two Arkansas State Troopers for slander. I have not added this content, as all links I could find are caches of dead articles, except for a personal website that claims to reprint a World Net Daily article. As such I'm not comfortable with this. However, some of the caches claim the lawsuit was covered by Arkansas newspapers. Anybody have archive access to papers in Arkansas that can verify this claim with more reliable sources? Dave (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Found one Dave (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I think I will delete mention of the Snopes article or at least demote it. This appears to be one of Snopes first articles, and the editorial tone of it is far from professional. It reflects how the site has matured over the years. Reading the Snopes article I feel like the author is saying "yeah, stupid why would you even believe this claptrap in the first place, moron". The fact checking website TruthOrFiction's rebuke is much more professionally written. Dave (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)