Talk:Bill Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Good article Bill Clinton has been listed as one of the History good articles 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 reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Peer review This article was externally reviewed (April 30, 2007) by The Denver Post. "thorough and unbiased, giving fair weight to both Clinton accomplishments and scandals."; "The bulk of it appeared to have been written by the Clinton Museum and Library in Little Rock, Ark."; "a great place for a student to begin building his or her knowledge on Clinton." Please examine the findings.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9


Contents

[edit] DMCA paragraph woefully out of place

I would question the necessity of a paragraph outlining the DMCA in this article, but would even more seriously question why it is under the heading regarding Bill Clinton's impeachment trial.75.177.137.225 (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attempts to insert the Clinton + Rev. Wright image

Let's not kid each other here with the "its just a picture showing Bill Clinton, what's POV about that?" nonsense. Rev. Wright is a hugely controversial figure tied to Barack Obama, who just happens to be running in a very bitterly-contested primary with Bill Clinton's wife, Hillary. Inserting a Wright + Clinton here is an attempt to mitigate that Wright + Obama controversy. If there is truly a need to expand the gallery section of this article, then there's no reason to insist on this image in particular. Tarc (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As an added thought, I will pose this; let's say someone added an image of Bill and Monica Lewinsky to the gallery. Could anyone say with a straight face that that is "just an image of the Prez and an intern" ? There's subtext to placing an image of Clinton and Wright in this article. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. I have to ask though do we even need a gallery? As all the photographs in the gallery are actually on wikicommons and there is a link to wikicommons Bill Clinton LordHarris 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)No offense, but you seem rather paranoid about this. I'm a fan of Bill Clinton, and would never draw that conclusion. How does this picture at all mitigate the Obama-Wright 'controversy?' As for Lewinsky, I'd love it if we could get a picture of her with Clinton - the encyclopedic value in such an image is huge. faithless (speak) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"encyclopedic value" of a Lewinsky image in the gallery? Well, no offense either, but I don't see how your response can be taken even remotely seriously. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Like it or not, the Lewinsky scandal was a major part of Clinton's presidency (unfortunate, but true). The encyclopedic value is obvious, just as a picture of Obama and Wright would be, or a picture of the current President with Osama bin Laden would be. I have made a genuine effort to remain civil here - disagree if you will, but "I don't see how your response can be taken even remotely seriously" and an edit summary saying "what the fuck" in a roundabout way isn't constructive. faithless (speak) 15:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Your ignoring of the patently obvious isn't constructive at all either. Both images we're talking about above can and would portray a POV above and beyond the image itself. Yes the Lewinsky scandal is a major part of Clinton's history, why are you eve brining that strawman up? It it mentioned prominently in the article and has an article of its own, no one here is saying that it shouldn't. But placing an image of her in an otherwise innocuous image gallery would be crossing the line. You know that, and I know that. If you truly desire to expand the image gallery, then there should be no problem finding other public domain, non-charged images to use instead of this. Insisting on this one and this one alone without sufficient explanation as to why it is important gives credence to the "has an agenda" accusation. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You're the one who brought up Lewinsky; I'm not advocating adding such an image to this article, but to say that such an image has no encyclopedic value is laughable. Actually, I concur with the above sentiment that the gallery should be scrapped - it serves no real purpose, considering there is a link to Commons in the article. Either way, I'm not going to waste any more time on such a ridiculous argument. On a side note - as this was such a trivial matter, and as we both appear to be fans of Bill Clinton, I imagine this could have been settled very easily and harmoniously. Coming out with guns blazing and a condescending/insulting attitude doesn't do anyone any good. I implore you to take this into consideration in the future. faithless (speak) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I make no apologizes for being flabbergasted that someone can sit here and suggest that image's inclusion had no other context other than "hey, here's Bill Clinton with some guy". Tarc (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First black president?

An AP article today by Sonya Ross [1] mentions Toni Morrison recently "clarified the first-black-president title she'd bestowed on Clinton," but it doesn't stay what the clarification was or where it appeared. Anyone know? Шизомби (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Error

I noticed a factual eror in the ariticle. It says that Bill Blinton was president from 1993-2001. But how could that be true if George W. Bush was elected in 2000. So if what i say is correct, could someone please correct it. I'm having trouble figuring out how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mataaron83 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Presidents are Elected in november the year before the current presents term ends. President Bush was elected in 2000 but became President in 2001. So therefore President Clinton"s term ended in 2001.Jpc100 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of posthumously-born notable people

I've just created List of posthumously-born notable people. Not sure where to mention it in Clinton's article. Any suggestions? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That he was born after the death of his father is already touched upon in Bill Clinton#Early life. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental Stuff

There is information on Clinton's environmental policies and actions scattered all around wikipedia, but it barely gets a mention here on the official Clinton page. Someone oughta compile that information and add it to the page. Some of this information can be found in the Environmental policy of the United States article, there's a little on U.S. National Monuments article, a little here Roadless area conservation. Obviously it's not great for wikipedia to reference itself, but it's a starting point. Shafferl (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Degree

Under education it says that he studied 'Government' at Oxford. I doubt this as no such degree exists. He is also included in the list of famous PPE students at Oxford, here. This sounds much more likely, but could people verify it.Billsmith453 (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)