Talk:Troopergate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Need for article

The content of that article _is_ entirely a subset of the Jones article. There's nothing unique there. Further, "troopergate" is only of any note _because_ of the Jones lawsuit. Or am I missing something? Do you have any reasonably substantive material to add to that article which is not in the Jones article. As best I can tell, "troopergate" was simply a magazine article by Brock until Jones. Derex 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ^{moved from user talk:Asbl}

The whole point about the Troopergate article is that there were these 4 Arkansas state troopers who were upset that Clinton did not take them with him to DC when he won the presidencey. They therefore made up all kind al salacious stories, all but Paula Jones proved false. The article might probably needs to be expanded (I've added a little bit not), but it is not a subset of Paula Jones. Troopergate spawned Paula Jones, in the same manner that Linda Tripp spawned the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. --Asbl 11:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

no i understand that. i meant the content was a subset of jones, and the notability is because of jones. chronology is not necessarily the best organizational structure. however, if there's more useful stuff for an expansion here, that's fine expand away. Derex 17:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont think troopergate became notable only for Jones (and by extension Lewinsky, as Jones would have gone nowhere if it was not for Lewinsky -- remember, the case was thrown out of court). Even prior to the Lewinsky, Troopergate created an image in the mind of the public of Clinton as a womanizer. I dont think Lewinsky would have gone as far as it did if it were not for that perception. --Asbl 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)