Talk:Bill Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to Table of Contents

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Bill Clinton has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Bill Clinton is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Clinton article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Bill Clinton has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

WikiProject Echo has identified Bill Clinton as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Dutch or Hebrew language Wikipedias.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

For older discussion, see archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5

[edit] Bombing sudan

Wasnt it alleged that one of the sites bombed by America was a pharmaceutical company which produced 50% of sudans drugs and medecines? this should be included, no? (137.154.16.31 07:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

see Operation Infinite Reach--csloat 09:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I support Mets501's reprotection of the page today (log). I unprotected it a couple days ago because 1) it had been protected for over two weeks, and 2) before that two weeks the page had not needed protection for many months since a brief period back in February. It is disappointing that a page that has gone so long without protection so long suddenly requires semi-protection for an extended period. Since the vandalism on the page may be election related, my plan is to wait until a week after the election is over and see if the vandals have lost interest at that point. Others may want to try earlier, if you do, please watch the page. NoSeptember 12:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there some reason his losing his law license isn't mentioned?

~~That was a pretty major event in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal. I'm surprised that it's not mentioned here.~~ Nevermind. Jasper23 pointed out that it's in there. I just didn't catch it. Jinxmchue 13:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I swear I saw this in here recently but glancing back at a few older edits I can't find it. I thought that someone edited it a few days ago to reflect that his license was suspended (for 5 year, I think?). But this is a busy article, particularly in light of the recent interview, so it's easy to miss or overlook even major edits. Go ahead and add it to the article (supported by a verifiable reference, of course) as I agree that it's a significant enough event to warrant a brief mention. --ElKevbo 14:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw it too! mirageinred 21:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Its already in the article. You just need to search. Jasper23 22:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I was searching for the word "license." I found it when I searched for "law" instead. Thanks! Jinxmchue 14:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Me, too. Man, that's embarassing to miss something right before my eyes... :) --ElKevbo 14:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a really big article. Details are hard to find sometimes. There is also a category tag on the top of the page. Jasper23 16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, seeing as how the majority of Wikipedia editors and admins are unabashed liberals, that fact will eventually get deleted. Haizum 21:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well arent you a bright ray of sunshine? Jasper23 23:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China and Nuclear Weapons

I doubt that this is true, but I heard that Clinton sold China the technology that allowed them to create nuclear weapons. Like I said, I doubt that this is true, but has anyone else heard this? The Hybrid Lives 09:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Nope but considering he was born in 46 it's pretty unlikely!

China had nukes long before Bill Clinton was President. China did obtain some missile-guidance technology from the U.S. during the Clinton presidency, however. He was heavily criticized for allowing this to happen. user:Jsc1973

I did some research about six months ago and I found several academic sites that stated China aquired the technology for effective ICBM guidence systems through technology buys and esiponage during the Clinton Administration. Ill try to dig it up again. China of course had nuclear weapons before Clinton. Michorn 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Infinite Reach

Why is there no link to this incident or to the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical factory in the Africa section? This is an important event in Clinton's career.

[edit] Otherwikiprojects Tags

Please combine them into that tag where the other corresponding wikiproject articles are related.100110100 04:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article

GEEZ! This article is just as bad as the Hitler page! Come on! No article should exist in such size. It makes a mountian of reading and discouarages it altogether. Colonel Marksman 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is the size of Hitler because no other prominent person in recent history has generated such rankor/fervor/hate/love. As such, the shear volume of material written about or refering to Clinton is inevitably going to generate a lot of debate and may become one of the reasons why Clinton goes down, historically, as one of America's most notable figures. I didn't vote for Slick either time, but I can see both sides of the partisan arguments. What astounds me is how much falsehood gets spread by both sides. William Jefferson Clinton may be the most misunderstood and miscast character I have ever encountered - and I LOVE history.

The one thing that makes any antagonist/protagonist viable is the appearance of a worthy opponent. Clinton's opponent for a dozen years or more is/was Richard Melon Scaife. Given Scaife's involvement with the CIA and the Bush family, it is very hard for me to understand why this Clinton nemesis isn't at least mentioned in the article. I have edited in some mention of Scaife & the Arkansas Project several times only to have it disappear afterwards. It makes one wonder about the tinfoil hat theory of "Men in the Shadows". i4 21:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC) IdioT.SavanT.i4

[edit] Economic Prosperity Statistics

We started discussing this but never reached a conclusion, so I'm copying it out to the active talk page.

Reading through the stats on President Clinton's economic record I found several things that I wondered about. Maybe someone can address these if needed.

Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector. Wouldn't one need to factor in 8 years of population growth here?

Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars). We'd need to discount inflation/standard of living for this to be meaningful, wouldn't we?

The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever. Well I'm sure it is. But that's like people saying Bush got more votes than any other president in history, while ignoring population growth. How does 2000 compare to other historical surpluses if discounted for inflation?

Also none of these stats are specifically sourced - I'm assuming that the references section at the bottom covers them? If not, we need to get sources for all this stuff.

Dubc0724 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton walked out of his commitment to the Army Reserve

as a condition to being admitted to ROTC, Clinton signed up and was sworn in to the army reserve, but never showed up. Other than that, his draft dodging looks comarable to Dick Cheney's. Compare the two bios on Wiki.CorvetteZ51 13:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if he was actually sworn into the Army Reserves. Probably not as you would read more about it. ROTC cadets at that time in the first two years of college were not in the military, it was only in the last two years of the college program that they actually were in the Army Reserves.--TGC55 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

at the time, Clinton would have been a grad student. So a four year program seems unlikely. Besides that, I find it hard to believe that a deferment was given to a 'walk-on', ie a person with no obligations. I find it hard to believe that all the 'letter writing effort ' would be need to get Clinton into ROTC,if their were no obligations. Clinton could always 'just take two years-beginning ROTC', but that doesn't get you a deferment.CorvetteZ51 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

?DICK CHENEY got 5 Deferments!! I don't think he, Karl Rove, or Bush can talk about draft dodging.

[edit] Misleading wording

"After much debate, the Congress - which has sole power under the U.S. Constitution to regulate the armed forces - implemented the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, stating that homosexual men and women may serve in the military as long as their sexuality is kept secret. By 1999, Clinton said he didn't "think any serious person could say" that the policy was not "out of whack".[3]"

Reading this, I was surprised, so I went to the article sourced. The wikipedia article suggests that Clinton said that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is out of whack, but that's not what the article says at all. The article states that Clinton says the way its implemented "now" (in 1999) is out of whack, not the policy, and that he was calling for it to be implemented the way it was intended to when the policy was created. So the source nearly says the exact opposite of what the wikipedia article is saying here. Someone can either fix it to be worded more accurately to the source, or dump the last sentence from the quote above all together, since its talking about Clinton's opinions 7 years ago about the way things were run 7 years ago, and I'm assuming at least the latter has changed since then, if not Clinton's opinions as well. This part is also written into the section about Clinton's first term, so referencing 1999 events and quotes there doesn't make much sense anyway (particularly when the quote is used in context and you see he's not talking about the policy itself).

Link to article sourced above - http://archives.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/11/clinton.gays.military/index.html - just reading the first two paragraphs shows how Clinton's quotes are taken out of context.

Funkadillo 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's wrong then please fix it! --ElKevbo 17:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess I became a little gunshy after having good changes reverted for little to no reason recently. Funkadillo 22:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an edit to the article, trying to make it more in line with the intent of the cited material. Let me know what you think of it! Stealthound 23:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Funkadillo 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As well as being misleading the statement was false in that it stated that Congress has the sole power to regulate the armed forces, that is incorrect, Executive Orders may also be used to regulate the armed forces.Michorn 02:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox News Section POV?

It seems as though an anti-clinton bias resonates through the Fox News Chris Wallace Interview section. I remember a 9/11 commision member come on FOX News right have the interview and actually certify everything Clinton said.

I agree. As for the 9/11 commision guy i wasnt watching ive only seen excerpts.

[edit] Bin Ladin/Wikipedia Bias

I count 42 mentions of Bin Laden in this article. By contrast, the main article on Bush has a grand total of TWO mentions of Bin Laden. (In fact, the main article on Bush had ZERO mentions of Bin Laden until I recently raised this issue myself in the "Discussion" area). I find this incredible. If you read the 2 articles, you pretty much get the sense that the fact that Bin Laden remains a free man today is entirely due to Clinton. I've seen a lot of pro-GOP bias over the years on Wikpedia, but this issue sets a new low for this "reference" resource.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.120.67 (talk • contribs) 14:09, October 30, 2006.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo 19:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO this is entirely on-target. Clinton deserves all the mentions of Bin Laden he gets. He passed on catching him, allowing 9/11 to happen. I'm not saying Bush doesn't deserve any mentions, as it definitely happened during his tenure. Clinton gets the blame, though. --andrew leahey 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Typical NeoCon distorted view of history. Clinton gets all the blame for Bin Laden and 9/11 and Bush (of course) is totally blameless. Never mind the fact that Bush spent an astounding 42 percent of his time in office before 9/11 on vacation. Never mind that he rejected the Hart/Rudmann proposal for a Dept. of Homeland Security in Feb. 2001 (the establishment of which would have almost certainly prevented 9/11). Never mind the fact that Bush took zero action after he received the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." PDB on Aug. 6, 2001. NeoCons truly live in a fantasy world: a world in which Clinton conspired to murder Vince Foster and Kerry conspired with the U.S. Navy to receive a Silver Star and Bronze Star he didn't really deserve. I guess I don't blame NeoCons for worshipping their hero Bush and re-writing history to smear the Dems. However, I did expect better of Wikipedia, a site that (hilariously) claims to be an impartial reference source.

This is also an apples to oranges comparison - there are many more sub-articles on GWB (such as the Public Perception article, for which there is no corresponding Clinton article). A direct comparison may not be the best gauge of Wikipedia's 'bias'. Dubc0724 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To define someones view, even when it is the truth, as 'typically NeoCon' is typically liberal. --andrew leahey 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a soapbox, the guy who started this needs to register and the guy who called someone a "neo-con" needs to sign his posts. Whether or not who is to blame anything significant should be added or kept Drew1369 20:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I love the Wikicrat roadblock that's been thrown up, "you need to create an account before..." What a joke. The guy made a startling observation and no one has been able to provide and cogent explaination or a solution. --Haizum 07:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaigning

Does anyone want to put into the article that Bill Clinton has been campaigning for the Democratic Senate candidates in states such as Tennessee, New Jersey, et. al. during the midterms in order to keep the article current? Bearly541 talk 01:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presidency

This article seems to read very strangely to me. The section on his presidency (presumably the most important info about him) is nothing but a link to the main page on his presidency. This has the effect of making the whole article about almost everything except his presidency. Granted I wouldn't expect the Presidency section to in this article to be complete but I don't expect it to be empty. If anything I would expect it to see a summary that occupied at least, say, 20% of the article. The way this is organized makes it look like he was a joke as a president and it is only the other parts of his life that were interesting. --Mcorazao 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we do need a summary, with the link at the top of it, but it should not occupy 20% of the article. Supertigerman 17:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colors/Decorations

I haven't visited presidents' pages in a while, but I remember a time in which there were colors red/blue at the top of the infoboxes. Why was this removed? I seem to remember that they enhanced the page. Supertigerman 17:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Marriage/Matthew Sheppard

Should someone put his views on homosexuality? He "sed a tear over the death of Matthew Shapard." Then not long after aggresssively disaproevd of gay marriage (to the point of being red in the face). 06:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His early life

The young Billy, as he was called, was raised by his mother and stepfather, assuming his last name "Clinton" throughout elementary school but not formally changing it until he was 14. Clinton grew up in a traditional, albeit blended, family; however, according to Clinton, his stepfather was a gambler and an alcoholic who regularly abused Clinton's mother and sometimes Clinton's half-brother Roger, Jr.

Does this mean that Clinton exaggerated his claims about his stepfather being an alcoholic? This paragraph makes him sound like a liar. Clarification? mirageinred 22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why no "Bill"?

Seeing as he has been using the name for most of his life and it is the name by which most people know him, why is it not more prominent? Hazydan 08:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the name of the article, and appears some two dozen times in the article. How might it be made more prominent? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of the opening paragraph, infofox title, that sort of thing, but in the end I guess it doesn't much matter. Hazydan 18:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Precedence Entry

The article says that Bill Clinton came after George HW Bush but was succeeded by Condi Rice in the "Order Of Precedence". I don't get it. Didn't George W Bush follow Clinton in that list? 24.106.192.66 21:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with Bush's "No New Taxes" pledge

I think the portion that says that President Bush reneged about raising taxes needs to be changed. Techinically he did not create a new tax and according to a PBS program he did tell the truth. He raised an existing tax and did not create a new tax. The reason it hurt him was not because people felt that he lied, but rather they felt it was done in in the shadow of politics. In other words he did it behind the people's back. I don't know the word reneged seems to imply that he lied, but in fact he did not. It could use rewording in that area. I know it's a very small detail, but I think for the integrity of keeping wikipedia as academic as possible these small details are important.

(I moved this to its own area since someone added it to my Order Of Precedence section) 24.106.192.66 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NO Discussion on any presidential accomplishments

The entire article on his presidency is Clinton's supposed scandals. This article has been hijacked by GOP morons--look at the discussions "losing law license, bombing Sudan" He oversaw the largest economic boom and consecutive years of growth in AMerican history. This article does a disservice to wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.254.193.190 (talk • contribs) 13:09, November 14, 2006.

In the matter of legislation, the Clinton era's lasting effect not worth writing about, at least not in Wiki, the only thing I can think of is Clinton's 'Bridge to the 21st Century', for what it's worth, there is no Wiki article about it. What little Clinton did, was composed of, meaningless-in-the-long-run personal issues, meaningless-in-the-long-run budget mud fights with Congress, M.I.T.L.R. Middle East going in circles,and a just-passing-time foriegn policy, MITLR chasing Newt Gingritch out of town. Honerable mention to, Waco standoff, Oklahoma City bombing, WTC bombing, again marginal involvement by Clinton,just happened on his watch.CorvetteZ51 11:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article reads like a National Enquirer article. If this is how people want this article to look then fine, but it seems like any intelligent person will see that this article says almost nothing about this president's presidency, and will likely interpret the reason for this as a strong bias against. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Molybdenumtop (talk • contribs).

There's just nothing to write about. For example, his first two years as president, were kinda shakey. Then, Congress flips, and his hands were largely tied. National security, Bin-Laden was known, but became much more of an issue after Clinton left office. To inply otherwise, would be dishonestCorvetteZ51 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antisocial Personality Disorder

I am a new user, however, I thought this section should be added. At the very least, the possibility ought to be entertained with all of the behavior he shows.

Clinton simply shows a lot of behavior indicitive of a sociopath - cheating on his wife, sexual promiscouity (to the extremes), manipulation (on a personal level, that is - most politicians are manipulative in a different sense) and charm and charisma. These are merely the things we are certain of. However, there are also allegations of rape, and anger outbursts. (Fox News Channel incident, other alleged anger outbursts of an extreme nature while in Arkansas.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kane635 (talk • contribs) 00:06, November 22, 2006.

Got any reliable, verifiable evidence or is this original research and speculation? --ElKevbo 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. You are so funny. mirageinred 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Drew Pinsky, board-certified physician and Addiction Medicine specialist, has said that he believes Clinton to be a sexual compulsive (sex addict). If I decide to cite this information you probably won't be laughing anymore. --Haizum 07:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anal-Oral Contact

As part of a greater psychological profile of Clinton in support of recent discussion regarding his mental health, I think it is relevant to present the following:

Clinton engaged in anal-oral contact multiple times with Lewinsky according to the Starr Report as sourced here[1], here[2] and here[3]. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post Nominal letters use

Clinton has been created a Grand Companion of the Order of Logohu[4] which carries the post nominal letters GCL. Should the letters be added to his name at the top of the article of not. Hossen27 12:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1996 Election

There seems to be no mention of the 1996 Presidential election, except for the China scandal. Bob Dole's name isn't even included. Jpers36 15:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/l/Talk%7EBill_Clinton_4489.html"