Talk:Clinton Chronicles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26 October 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

[edit] 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)

[edit] AfD

This article is being considered for deletion. See Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/l/i/Talk%7EClinton_Chronicles_09c0.html"