Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

improvments

I have looked at the artical and i think thease should help:

• Gallery: Images do not make an artical better, plus it is just showing clinton in various ways

• Personal life: Make a personal life section.

• Lead: The Lead dose not normally have refrences

• Clean up: make a clean up or wait and i will make the clean up with a friend

• Electoral history: Dose not have anything on it exept the artical name, and it cannot be placed on the artical because it dosent flow very good.

• Peer reviw: Not saying it is nesasery but it could help knowing other editors opinions.

Well i think with this it could become a better artical. And if your planing to make Bill Clinton GA or FA, send me a messege and i well asist in the artical, I would seariously take some ideas from Obama and Reagen articals, as Ombama is a FA and a current President and Reagen is a FA and was a Former president. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Personal life" sections are a bad idea, because they lose the chronological connection between different events in the subject's life. This is especially important with Clinton, whose personal and professional lives intersected very dramatically several times. And the "Electoral history" summary section is common to many of our political articles – look at all the entries in Category:Electoral history of American politicians – and the subarticle is properly linked to from the main article. And to be honest, the idea of you doing a "cleanup" is a bit strange, when just your post here has many bad spelling and grammar mistakes. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I do see your point but going around many presidential articals and many have personal life, and if not a personal life a marrige and children section. Can we take the section Electoral history See also that way it is in the artical. And i see your point about my spelling, but mainly it is understandable it good to me and i check my spelling when i right an artical. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to see at a glance who his wife and children are, the infobox at the top has entries for both, that's why those entries are there. But the references to Hillary in the article – marriage, education reform in Arkansas, LSC chair, her own political prospects, 60 Minutes interview about state of marriage during 1992 campaign, conflict of interest at Rose Law Firm, failed health care reform, later legislative success of her initiatives, Whitewater, sexual misconduct allegations and Monica, Hillary running for Senate, Hillary running for president – all of these references have to stay where they are in the article, because they wouldn't make any sense or have the right context if they were pulled out into a separate section. In other words, Hillary's role in Bill's life has been very public and very much interwined with his political career; her role hasn't been just "personal". Wasted Time R (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay your right in the personal life, he has not have much personal life, but tell me what you think about my other suggestions. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:ALSO for what goes into a "See also" section. Links that are already present in the article do not go in. Indeed, really good articles often have no "See also" section at all, because everything has already been worked into the article text. Also, please read MOS:HEAD regarding section headers: only the first word is normally capitalized. Thus, it is "See also", not "See Also". Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay but the Electoral history dose not work in like a section, maybe we can put it in his political carrer and it is a probably a good idea to take out the See also section. Would it be a good idea to make his Foreign policy. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A reference link that no longer works should be updated or removed: ^ "Obama asked, “Do you think Bill Clinton was our first black president?”". Fox News. Retrieved November 11, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.202.147 (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

First person view

"Sometime in my sixteenth year I decided I wanted to be in public life as an elected official. I loved music and thought I could be very good, but I knew I would never be John Coltrane or Stan Getz. I was interested in medicine and thought I could be a fine doctor, but I knew I would never be Michael DeBakey. But I knew I could be great in public service.[15]" Should be third-person. --71.255.76.249 (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? It's a first-person quote.--Louiedog (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no quotes where it is being used (see under "Early life and Career"). Therefore, it is not a first-person quote, and should have quotes around it to designate it as such if it is intended to be one. --72.68.196.235 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to a Template:cquote so the fact that it is Clinton's own words will be more apparent. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the colon was supposed to denote that it was a quote. Obviously, it wasn't the most conspicuous to do it. Tarc's solution makes it clearer.--Louiedog (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing a mention of the northern ireland conflict

The section Bill_Clinton#Military_and_foreign_events is missing all mention of Clinton's role in resolving the Northern Ireland conflict (Chelsea wrote her term paper on it). Surely it deserves mention, especially because "gratitude" for his role in the conflict is mentioned later on in this article.--Louiedog (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in Sexual Misconduct section

I don't have a login so I can't fix this myself: in the Sexual Misconduct Claims part of the article there is a mention that Clinton had a sexual relationship from 1959 to 1992. As Clinton was 13 in 1959 the date is clearly wrong, and in the source (reference number 120) there is a statement by the woman that the relationship commenced in the mid-1970s. Can someone fix this please? 220.253.222.113 (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Governor of Arkansas section

Why was the following item deleted, as it was well cited and explains the antipathy of Carter towards Clinton?

Clinton believed that Jimmy Carter cost him the gubernatorial election in 1980 and that “the peanut farmer was unfit for high office.“ tuco_bad 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The subject is certainly pertinent to the article, and you gave a detailed citation from a respected historian, but I think that your phrasing was faulty. You first wrote unfit for high office without quotes, then you put the words in quotes without making clear the source (I assume that the words were Clinton's). I would suggest something similar to:

Clinton blamed his defeat on Ronald Reagan's landslide, and on Jimmy Carter, whom Clinton described as "unfit for high office."

Plazak (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I will rephrase Clinton's description of Carter. tuco_bad 02:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

You are correct, Clinton blamed his defeat on Actor Ronald Reagan landslide victory of Carter. Northwestern guy (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Clinton blamed his defeat on a variety of factors: the unpopular car tax, the Cuban issue thrust upon him by Carter's circumstances, and a long list of things that essentially amounted to the perception that he wasn't listening to the people that elected him.[My Life: pgs 280-287]--Louiedog (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd focus more on why Clinton actually did lose, not why he thought he lost. Politicians, like boxers and chess players, are notorious for concocting explanations for losses that involve something other than their own shortcomings. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole sound bite about Carter isn't fit for office has little bearing on Clinton's loss and just seems like petty gossip. And nowhere in the book does Clinton blame his loss on Carter's loss. And as Wasted Time R points out, a politician commenting on loss is a rather unreliable narrator.--Louiedog (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read: Brinkley, Douglas The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter’s Journey Beyond the White House p.355. Clinton is quoted as blaming Carter for his loss. tuco_bad 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

1992 New Hampshire finish

The 1st paragraph in the 1992 campaign section has 2 sentences which appear to contradict each other:

"He finished second to Tsongas in the New Hampshire primary...."

"He ended leading New Hampshire by a large percentage."

How could he finish 2nd and lead by a large percentage? LarryJeff (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. Don't know what was meant.--Louiedog (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Items needing attention by somebody with edit rights

1. Link in reference 13 (news article about Clinton appointment as U.N. Special Envoy to Haiti) does not go to the correct article. I looked up other articles on the topic, but I can't edit the page. For example, you could substitute this one:

Bill Clinton to be UN Haiti envoy BBC News, May 19, 2009.75.61.67.234 (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done and thanks. You should consider creating an account here on WP and then next time you could do the edit :) Bjmullan (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I did consider it, particularly when I was considering more significant edits to an article in my area of expertise. But when starting to read about account creation, I read the recommendation that you not use your real name in order to avoid possible harassment. I wanted to use my real name because I would like it to be visible when I make contributions involving more effort and professional expertise. But that warning gave me pause! My real name is actually quite unique and extremely easy to google, so if harassment is a real possibility, hostile people could find a lot more than just my wikipedia profile. But with the idea of an anonymous, fake-named profile, I found I lost interest in participating at that deeper level. There's effort involved just in learning the ropes around here. Being identifiable by name might make it worth it -- assuming I didn't have to worry about harassment. Your thoughts on the naming and harassment issue? 75.61.67.234 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Never saw the warning and it wouldn't bother me anyway! If you have knowledge you should share it. Just pick a name it's no big deal, I saw one today "the cows want their milk back", and that made me laugh :) I'm sure you will enjoy it. Bjmullan (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1993 World Trade Center attack

1993 world trade centre attacks should be repoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.160.247 (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I will add that in99.8.105.153 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"William Jefferson" vs. "Bill"

It seems to me that this article should be titled "William Jefferson Clinton" instead of "Bill Clinton". Yes, President Clinton is usually referred to as "Bill Clinton" in day-to-day parlance and his books have the author name "Bill Clinton." However, he is also often introduced at speaking events as "President William Jefferson Clinton" and that's the name under which he was sworn into as the president. It just seems more proper for a reference work to file President Clinton under his legal/official name instead of his nickname. What do people think?

We refer to subjects by their common names. Best, faithless (^speak) 08:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See also: Jimmy Carter, Jon Stewart, Ray Charles, and Lady Gaga.--Louiedog (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

MOS:BIO#Names "article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known". Like you said people commonly use "Bill". According to MOS:BIO#Names "subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph" - the intro should be "William Jefferson Clinton (born ..." not "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born ..." Hutcher (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Confederate ancestry

Like Truman and Carter, Clinton had ancestors that fought to the Confederate States of America. Check it out here:

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mscivilw/bios.html

• BLYTHE, Thomas Jefferson - Great great grandfather of Pres. Bill Clinton (Clinton changed his name from Blythe). Born Aug. 12, 1829 in AL, the son of Andrew Blythe. He married Ester Elvira Baum in Marshall Co., MS Jan. 1, 1849. Thomas enlisted in Co. "F" 34th Miss. on Apr. 27, 1862 along with his two brothers, John Wesley and Newton Jasper Blythe. All three survived the war. Thomas drew a pension for his service. He died Aug. 6, 1907 and is buried in Lowry Cemetery in Tippah County. Click here for more information about him.

I move it be included in the article. It it noteworthy, as it the enduring association with Southern Democrats and the Confederacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martan32 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There are millions of people in TheUnited States and abroad, who have ancestors who fought for the confederacy. I don't see why its notable to mention it on this article. Yes he was the president, but it has nothing to do with his life at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments on deficit record and citations

The only comment that address Clinton's budget record in the entire article is:

Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion

I find it a little odd that his performance on the budget is mentioned nowhere else beyond the introduction, and the comment itself is uncited. I have also been unable to find a reputable source which verifies this (specifically the amount cited of $559 billion).

Also, I have found that in general in wikipedia, and specifically in Bill Clinton's articles, there is people are conflating the terms "public debt" (debt held by the public) and "national debt" (public debt intragovernmental holdings), which is an important distinction because his budget surplus is with regards to public debt rather than the national debt.

For now I would like to see a tag added to the claim, please. Apocryphal Libertarian (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Apocryphal's comments. The National Debt (Public Dept Intergovernmental Holdings) went up every year during the Clinton administration. Please see the following link for that data:OMB Historical TablesIf debt went up, there can be no real surplus.Rlantzy2112 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Clinton's first Speech to Nation

Why is the fact of Clinton's first speech being removed from Clinton's presidential history? tuco_bad 00:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Thank you for bringing the subject to the talk page.

The first edit summary beyond mine says: rv: What you are offering is synthesis, which is taking a website that simply lists old campaign fliers and applying your own "what he said vs. what he did" analysis.

The personal juxtaposition of two facts, when that comparison is not made in a published secondary reliable source, is original research, which is against wikipedia core policy.--Louiedog (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Clinton came to power burdened by far more, and more specific, promises than any President in recent memory. He found it necessary to start breaking them even before he took office. He reversed himself on Haitian refugees, on a middle-class tax cut, and on cutting the deficit by half in his first term. These were not pledges buried in the small print of position papers. These were major commitments, made repeatedly and with scathing accompanying criticism of the Bush Administration.

National Review, August 23, 1993 by Brit Hume

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v45/ai_13294511/?tag=content;col1

Is this source acceptable, if not I have others? tuco_bad 03:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

That's an interesting article but the tax cut renege was one specific example out of three, being used to advance a thesis on why Clinton never got a "honeymoon period". You may as well have lifted any fact out of context such as "he stopped in San Francisco to call for a worldwide jobs summit in the United State".

So, you've sourced the fact that the tax cut was promised but not delivered, but not why it's standalone notable. The source considers it notable only insofar as it shaped his changing relationship with the media. Brit Hume never intended to state this fact as a particularly notable part of his 1st address, as you're attempting to use here. Clinton said a lot of things in his 1st address; the highlighted quote is the only piece consensus has agreed sticks out particularly, though you are free to offer arguments for consideration otherwise.--Louiedog (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You write: "Clinton said a lot of things in his 1st address"

However this speech was about the need to raise taxes - check it out!

BTW - From the Heritage Foundation:

By backtracking on tax-cut pledges even before the election, Barack Obama threatens to break Bill Clinton's speed record. It wasn't until a week before his first inauguration that Clinton openly reneged on his promise to cut taxes for the middle class."

http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed103108c.cfm tuco_bad 13:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC) cgersten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Extreme right-wing (or left-wing, for the sake of argument) usually do not qualify as reliable sources. They can be quoted on simple facts about themselves, but their commentary on others is unsuitable for the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this item from the New York Times – March 21, 1992?

“Although the bill passed with majorities too slight to override a veto, the issue will persist into the fall Presidential election campaign. Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas, the Democratic front-runner, has supported tax cuts for the middle class paid for by higher rates at the top.”

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/21/us/1992-campaign-economic-issues-tax-bill-passed-democrats-bush-vetos-it.html?pagewanted=1

There more items out there, you can do your own Google search.

Why not let the facts speak for themselves without censoring history? tuco_bad 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) cgersten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

The facts do speaks for themselves; this is an article about Bush and Congress, with a passing mention of Clinton. Again I will refer you to synthesis; you cannot take one source that talks about what someone said, another source that comments on what he did, and offer your own "a-ha!" conclusions. This was a major problem on several Obama-related articles as well recently; users looking for their own "gotcha" moments, or sourcing the gotchas to partisan sources. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps user would be more amenable to a listing of exactly what it would take to change people's minds. What you need is a mainstream reliable source that states (a) "Clinton raised taxes against his campaign promise, and (b) presents it in such a way that this fact is a notable aspect of Clinton's early Presidency.--Louiedog (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How about?

New York Times - February 17, 1993

"In selling his economic plan, President Clinton is gambling that voters never took seriously his campaign promise to lower the tax burden of the middle class and will respond favorably to an aggressive pitch based on equal measures of hope, fear and class revenge.

After months of polling and research, Mr. Clinton's top political advisers say they are convinced that middle-class voters will support higher taxes."

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/18/us/clinton-s-economic-plan-campaign-gambling-that-tax-cut-promise-was-not-taken.html?scp=1&sq=clinton raise taxes february 1993&st=cse tuco_bad 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC) cgersten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

CNN breaking news

He's just been taken to a New York hospital. Does anyone know what it is? Because so far the net says nothing, only the TV news. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ABC News reported he has been taken to Columbia Hospital for heart problems possibly relating somehow to a stint. He was on a gurney when he was admitted. 24.120.127.162 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So far, we only know he was rushed to a hospital after suffering chest pains. No other thing including whether it is about heart problems nor his current condition are known. Watching CNN right now. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 21:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

His councellor just announced that "He [Bill Clinton] is in good spirit and will continue [on his work for the foundation]". Seems like he's okay. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears he had an angioplasty. - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Post-presidency of Bill Clinton

This article is 128KB, which is more than a little on the long side. So I've copied the Post-Presidency section into Post-presidency of Bill Clinton. If you guys think it's OK, I'll summary-style that section. If not, propose deletion of the article --Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article is currently 55 kB (8857 words) readable prose size which is within the WP:SIZE guidelines of 60 kb and 10,000 words. That said, I'm sure a subarticle on Clinton's post-presidential career can be further expanded beyond what's in the main article now. However, I think a more standard title would be Post-presidential career of Bill Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The correct title of that article depends on whether it is only about his career since ceasing to be President, or whether it is about his life since then. That article is not clear on that matter; most of it is about his career. However, there is a section about his heart disease, yet it does not mention his latest operation. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Assassination attempt in 1994?

NNDB claims there was an assassination attempt on him in 1994. Do they have the year wrong, or was there really an attempt to kill him during that year? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Intervention against violent stepfather

The Early life and career section of this article says half-brother Roger Clinton, Jr. intervened to stop Roger Clinton, Sr.'s violence. Jr.'s and Sr.'s articles say it was Bill who physically intervened. Which is correct? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Bill intervened to protect his little brother and mom.--Louiedog (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This Bill Clinton Page Is Highly Misleading In Terms Of Sexual Allegations

This topic of discussion was created by socks and participated in socks. Thanks, archived. — Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The page states that Paula Jones was able to sucessfully prevail when she filed for an appeal, and she did not. She was still in the process of presenting her appeal when the settlement was reached; hence she had not prevailed, meaning she predominated and won, in her lawsuit, because a court settlement has no victor and is a compromise. The settlement also mainly went to her attorneys and not her The page also points out that Susan Webber Wright was one of Clinton's students at the university of Arkansas after it points out that she dismissed the case. Nobody has investigated Susan Webber Wright in a public fashion to suggest that she dismissed the case because she was a student of Clinton's and favored him. In fact, she is also a Republican. The article is misleading, unneutral and needs to be rightfully changed.204.169.161.1 (talk) 21:03, —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC). I agreeDr real (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Having an account on Wikipedia: cool. Using it to agree with your own previous comment: not quite so cool. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC) This is a shared IP address in Minnesota's Hennepin County. That doesn't mean we are the same user.Dr real (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oxford Years

It might be mentioned that Strobe Talbott was the President's roommate during his time at Oxford, a relationship that became political when the President appointed Talbott to the State Department as Deputy Secretary of State. This is discussed in My Life as well as the suicide of his other roommate over the draft. Clinton says in his book that the suicide impacted his feelings about the war and his choices surrounding the draft. jkv (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Typo

It says: In 2007, he released, Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World which became a bestseller and gandered positive reviews.[130]

Should this be changed to 'garnered' positive reviews, or am I just crazy?

In the "First Term" section, just above the "Travelgate" subsection is the following sentance: "That same year Hillary Clinton shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act through Congress and two years later Rodham Clinton succeeded in helping pass the Foster Care Independence Act. Bill Clinton supported both bills as well, and signed both of them into law." Should that be Hillary Clinton instead of Rodham Clinton? --152.131.9.132 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• I believe so. Also, if you are going to fix that first sentence you listed, it has a grammar mistake. "he released, Giving:.." shouldn't have a comma before Giving. Jpatros 14:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Health

Should the health section mention his lung surgery in March 2005? (92.11.254.235 (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC))

terrible picture

This topic of discussion was created by a banned sockpuppet. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article needs a recent picture. The only one in the article is an awful picture (2008 campaign). Those who hate the man should not insist on an ugly picture. Willie Sutton Bank President (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Images

How do you feel about these?

• 
  2007
• 
  2008
• 
  2009
• 
  2010

--William Saturn (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that you should not pick up where banned users have left off, lest you be lumped into the same category. I also feel that this article is quite image-laden as it is, and does not need to be cluttered further. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This post was in response to a comment left by an individual who had a valid point; the image from the 2008 campaign seems to be the only recent photo in this article. Hiding a post because one of the two participants was a banned user without the consent of the unbanned user, is terrible talk page etiquette. To then add that one removed the post because of their personal opinion on the merits of the proposal (without discussion), further demonstrates a talk page malpractice. Tarc, the action of hatting a discussion is basically the same as removal, the only difference is that it takes up more space. If there is one post (from a banned user without response), the post should be completely removed. However, if there is a response, it should be left alone. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Shortening

Someone placed a tag on this article saying that it's too long. That seemed like an appropriate tag, so I took a few fluffy sentences out of the lead. Also, I have never seen a two-column list in the middle of a Wikipedia biography. There's an identical list at Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton#Legislation_and_programs. So, I removed the list here, and inserted a sentence pointing to that other article. If legislation and/or programs are especially notable, they can be described in the rest of this article (many of them already are).

This article still needs some trimming (it's still at 122 KB), and I think this can be done in the section on post-presidency; it's huge, especially compared to the sections on each of his two terms. And many of the subsections in the post-presidency section are already too short to justify subheadings. Probably the best way to organize the post-presidency section would be chronologically.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've got it down to 119 KB from 125 KB today. This is like the subject's weight-loss efforts.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Down to 116 KB now. There was a lot of excess verbiage in the section on honors and accolades.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Accusations in the lede

The lede currently says: "Later he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, but was subsequently acquitted by the U.S. Senate.[8][9] During his presidency he was accused of adultery, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape."

My only part in this was to insert "perjury" (because that was one of the two charges during the impeachmant). The second quoted sentence seems a bit excessive to me. For example, I don't think the sexual assault and rape accusations were very widely publicized (compared, for example, to the adultery and sexual harassment accusations), and that lack of publicity may be related to the inability to confirm that these events happened.

But if we just delete the last sentence, then the first sentence would be kind of weird, and lacking any context. The impeachment charges stemmed from a lawsuit for sexual harassment by Paula Jones. That lawsuit was ultimately settled out of court for upwards of $800,000 and the perjury and/or obstruction of justice led to suspension of Clinton's law license in Araknsas, and his resignation from the US Supreme Court nar (which was about to disbar him). So, there should be a way to concisely give some context to the first quoted sentence above, but without going as far as the second quoted sentence above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence in full accurately summarizes the sourced material in the body of the article about sexual misconduct allegations. They were not widely covered because there was no related legal actions associated with the accusations and because the press had little interest in seeing such serious charges associated with Clinton.--Drrll (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Economic expansion in the lead

It is very misleading to indicate that Bill Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion without indicating that that same expansion began under the presidency of George H.W. Bush.--Drrll (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it didn't. Bush Sr.'s recession ended in Dec. 1992[1]. It's hard to create an economic expansion over the course of a single month. DKqwerty (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The source you gave doesn't say that the recession ended in Dec. 1992, it says the NBER gave "a statement that didn't come until December, 1992" about the recession ending. Sorry, but the 1990-1991 recession ended March 1991, 23 months before Bill Clinton assumed office. The recession of 2001 started 5 weeks after George W. Bush assumed office, after a negative GDP growth rate in Q1 2001. Are you going to seriously argue that that recession was caused by Bush?--Drrll (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

relevant.--Louiedog (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue. I'm going to let the reference speak for itself. DKqwerty (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference doesn't assign responsibility for the 2001 recession. It just discusses the Bush administration's attempt to change the start date of that recession. BTW, that same NBER that declared the end of the 1990/91 recession during December 1992, pegs its end at March 1991, not December 1992[2].--Drrll (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the way it's worded, then change the wording.--Drrll (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Joker, you have removed any context from the sentence, resulting in misleading readers to believe that the economic expansion was created by Clinton, despite two years of expansion before Clinton took office. Drrll (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Assassination attempt

This section of the article should be removed. The only two citations are an amazon.com page for the book making these cliams and an article citing the book making these claims. Sounds like someone is trying to sell a book. 85.81.126.123 (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sex" in the lede

I've made a noticeboard inquiry here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The noticeboard discussion is archived here. The consensus was against changing "scandal" to "sex scandal" in the lede of this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Clinton as first black president

Should there be something on here identifying clinton as the 1st black president? heres a reference. http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2002/02/20/clinton/index.html Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You may have mistaken a metaphor for a literal statement of fact. The author was making a rhetorical point, and was not saying that Clinton is literally an African-American. The first black president, according to the best available sources, was Barack Obama. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, it's there, in the "Public image" section. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

“ Clinton drew strong support from the African American community and made improving race relations a major theme of his presidency.[113] In 1998, Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison in The New Yorker called Clinton "the first Black president", saying, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas", and comparing Clinton's sex life, scrutinized despite his career accomplishments, to the stereotyping and double standards that blacks typically endure.[114]

In 2008, Morrison's sentiments were raised anew as Barack Obama, who would later become the country's first African-American President, ran for the presidency. After endorsing Obama, Morrison distanced herself from her 1998 remark about Clinton, saying that it was misunderstood. She noted that she has "no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race" and said she was only describing the way he was being treated during the impeachment trial as an equivalent to a poor black person living in the ghetto.[115] Obama himself, when asked in a Democratic debate about Morrison's declaration of Clinton as "black", replied that Clinton had an enormous "affinity" with the black community, but joked he would need to see Clinton's dancing ability before judging him to be black.[116]

”

--Louiedog (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"health care" vs. "healthcare"

I noted one editor has been changing all instances of "health care" to "healthcare". From what I can tell, two separate words ("health care") seems to be the preferred usage (see here & here). And changing it in the names of internal links breaks the links, so I have changed it back to "health care". — JPMcGrath (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Confusion in White House FBI Files Controversy

In the "White House FBI Files Controversy" section, the article says: Craig Livingstone, head of the White House Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background report files [...]. It then goes on to state that the Ray report stated "there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official was involved" in seeking the files. If Ray stated there is no evidence, and we present no sourced evidence, then why do we state that Livingstone improperly sought the files? I don't know enough about this case to confidently edit the section, so perhaps someone could help rectify this contradiction. Blackworm (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(Previous comment deleted, I had confused the edits of a different section.) It seems this is still unresolved, and it's still confusing. Was Livingstone a "senior" White House official? It's unclear if the quote from the Ray report refers to him. Did he actually request the documents (the cited article does not say)? In any case I'm not sure any of it is relevant enough to Bill Clinton to warrant its inclusion here. He wasn't apparently suspected of wrongdoing, his wife was. I suggest the section be removed. Blackworm (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Date/age when he changed his name from Blythe to Clinton

This article says he was born in 1946 and changed his name at age 14, which would be 1960 or 1961.

The articles about Roger Clinton, Sr., (his stepfather) and Virginia Clinton Kelley (his mother) both say that he changed his name in 1962, meaning either that he was 15 or 16 or that he was born in 1944 or 1945.

I remember seeing his mother saying (on television) that he changed his name at 18, which contradicts this article, but I saw that only once and in 1992, so I could be wrong.71.109.159.242 (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Remarks About Paula Jones Are Exaggerated And Need To Be Altered

Paula Jones only filed for an appeal and did not prevail. In fact, the Appeals Court was still investigating the case by the time the settlement had been reached. Also, while Susan Webber Wright was a student of Clinton's, it is not worth mentioning. Wright also issued rulings that weren't 100% favorable to Clinton when she presided over the Whitewater investigation, like when she sentenced Susan McDougal to the maximum sentence of eighteen months in prison for contempt of court when she refused to answer three questions about whether or not Clinton lied in his testimony; as mentioned in her Wikipedia article.98.240.254.121 (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sex in the lede

There was a discussion here at the BLP Noticeboard about changing "scandal" to "sex scandal" in the lede. The consensus was to treat the Clarence Thomas lede and this one the same, and therefore include the word "sex" in neither lede. However, because the Clarence Thomas lede now does include "sex," it seems like this lede may as well too. Please keep in mind WP:Spade.

If anyone disagrees, please give more than a two-word explanation. Thanks.108.18.185.163 (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't make editorial decisions in a "if they're gonna do that there, then we're gonna do this here" spiteful manner. At the BLP/N link provided I see a small discussion about the matter, certainly no consensus on the matter as you are claiming. Consensus cannot override core policies of NPOV and UNDUE anyways, and would not allow for this bizarre biographical article linkage that you seem to want. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, we will continue to advertise the sexual nature of the Thomas allegations in the lede of that article, and continue to do the opposite in this lede. The notion that it is "spiteful" to mention sex in this lede is incredibly ridiculous, but this is Wikipedia after all. Have a @#!*% fine day, Tarc.108.18.182.123 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have an editing issue with the Thomas article, then that article's talk page is the place to be. I might even be in agreement that "sex scandal" in that article's lead (I detest "lede" for the record) is a bit overboard, but then again the circus that was Thomas' confirmation hearing does feature prominently in his history. It's an interesting discussion to have, but again, shouldn't have a bearing on ol Bubba here. Tarc (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it should have no bearing on Clinton, given that he's a liberal Democrat whereas Thomas is not. If we treated them fairly and equally, then that would somehow suggest that Wikipedia is a 501c3 nonprofit organization entitled to a tax exemptIon due to Wikipedia's nonpartisan nature, rather than a forum for liberal POV-pushing. Oh wait....166.137.9.85 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Tarc (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Productive discussion ended when you said (at 13:44, 31 July 2010) that it would be "spiteful" to treat the two leads fairly and equally, saying in your edit summary that such a request is "bizarre".108.18.182.123 (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean the part where I told you that your editing rationale had no basis in policy or common sense? Ok. Are we done here? Tarc (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's right, the part where you ignored WP:SPADE and WP:NOTCENSORED, and where you failed to acknowdge that WP:BLP does not mean "nothing negative or offensive to puritanical individuals". The subject of the article had one of the most famous sex scandals in human history, and yet you want to keep the word "sex" out of the lede? Geez.108.18.182.123 (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.109.159.30, 26 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

please change

becoming the first Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to win presidential reelection

to

becoming the first Democratic incumbent since Lyndon Johnson to be elected to a second term and the first Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to be elected President more than once

because

the term "presidential reelection" is not correct, because

1. The word "reelection" is sometimes used to refer to any election of a current President to another term, including Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Lyndon Johnson who were not elected to their original term. By this definition, Clinton would be the first Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, not the first since Franklin Roosevelt.

2. When it refers to a President of the U.S., the term is "Presidential", with a capital P, not presidential

71.109.159.30 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Past participle of the verb "be"

Surely Clinton "is" something rather than "was". Yes, his primary fame is routed in his former president-ship, but I thought "was" is reserved for deceased biographies...? Any suggestions how this can be changed? Keith1234 (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.--Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.245.203 (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

First term as Governor

I don't know how to edit this but I'm pretty sure this is wrong:

In office January 9, 1979 – January 19, 1981

2 years as governor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.23.116 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 11 September 2010

He was governor for only 2 years on his first term. ~~ GB fan ~~ 04:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ninja Loans

Bill's work to modify the Community Reinvestment Act which led to the creation of the Ninja loans (and hence the GFC) really needs to be documented here. 124.169.16.180 (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)J

Go ahead and be bold. Jess_talk|_edits 04:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

III or IV?

The article twice says Pres. Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III. It cites a page at whitehouse.gov, which indeed says "III". But I've spent the last eighteen years (until now) with the understanding that he was born the fourth, not the third. In fact, the childhood photo of him at Wikipedia calls him the fourth. Could the White House webpage be wrong? Or could everyone else have been wrong for almost two decades? What's the story? President Lethe (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well in past talk page discussions about this here and here, the debate used to be that his autobio said "III" and the whitehouse.gov profile said "IV". Somewhere along the line the .gov bio was adjusted to say "III", so I'd conclude from that that that is the correct one now. Tarc (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It still doesn't look entirely decisive for me. Then I also consider that, even if his original birth certificate leans one way, the way his family thought of his name in those early years may lean the other. Anyway, this helps satisfy my curiosity; thanks for pointing me to those discussions, Tarc. — President Lethe (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm no less confused than anyone else here. His father's article also seems to be undecided. How can one officially verify whether it is III or IV? Thesomeone987 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Thesomeone987

A talk

This topic-the EEG Expressor and Instant EEG can be performed in the medical center,but I am not in a medical center,so I can not follow up the topic is performed on schedule or not? By the way,do you still care the politice? I make a plan for the membership of the U.N. to the Republic Of China,not just confirmed in the computer website,or just talk with Obama?What's the psychologic condition of the members of the U.N.? How can I make them to support my Plan? The [annunal fee] for the organization though so many countries do not pay the annual fee, [A war?], the Korea is not tuff enough to create a war,So my plane is perfect! A troop as a branch of the goverment outside the U.N.and decision should be maken in the U.N.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.33.23.93 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from p Lyon-Lee, 04 November 2010

Could a reference be added:

Bill Clinton has been acknowledged by Mr Jason Gale as being the inspiration for the London Lifestyle Awards —Preceding unsigned comment added by PLyon-Lee (talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Tense of Living Presidents

This is a suggestion that applies to all living presidents, but I thought to post it hear as I was noticing it at this moment. Shouldn't the line "was the # President of the United States" be "is the # President of the United States". I would think this to be the case for living presidents, as they are still recognized as Mr. President, even after their term has been served. I may be wrong, but I thought this was customary, and the present tense "is" would more accurately reflect this custom. Chris.P.Dunning (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

On balancing the budget and reported surplus..

Article says.. "The Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus in 2000, the last full year of Clinton's presidency."

It would be fair to add after that, that even though it may have been reported as being so, that it is incorrect as Dept. of the Treasury website shows that there never was a surplus, just a lower deficit. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

(I looked that website up, and it takes a while to load, but it is an official government website accessible/linked to from http://www.ustreas.gov/ after you select "Bureaus" then "Bureau of public debt" followed by "US public debt to the penny.")

Suggest adding this information on, change to.. "The Congressional Budget Office inaccurately reported a budget surplus in 2000, the last full year of Clinton's presidency when in fact there was still (and always has been) a deficit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.177.102 (talk • contribs)

You're confusing national debt (which is what that site relates too) with deficit. DC T•C 16:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from but the way it is reported is misleading as the countries national debt has not been "not a debt" at any point within the last few decades. Intragovernmental holdings (IE debt) is not accounted for in the statement that is usually made in regards to said surplus, as is the case in the original statement. Intragovernmenal debt is in this instance, made up of social security surplus used to pay for national debt (via the purchase of US government securities) which social security is legally required to do. So in essence the money has been borrowed from one pocket to be placed in another, covering the debt up and making it appear as a surplus when in fact it is not and in reality increments the national debt once said debts interests are accounted for. Good source of information with its own sources inside: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.177.102 (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source DC T•C 19:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I merely posted it since it has sources of its own that are relevant, such as the link to the treasury departments logs of public debt for the past few years. The source may not be reliable, but the information contained in it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.177.102 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to use common knowledge as a source, since that site I linked last is basically common knowledge (you cannot pay down debt by taking on more debt from another source.) The US Department of Treasury is http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np 71.100.177.102 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I just realized I said "A good source..etc.." above. More accurately I should have said "A reference I just found and could use to explain what I mean." Still relevant so please disregard that it says "a good source." Don't mean that to be linked in Wikipedia article page itself either. 71.100.177.102 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

bill clinton is very important 2 your country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.14.191 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting all presidents to GA level

I have begun work on the Clinton article. I am working off of a new peer review that i requested. The work is nearly done, and I believe that with your help, it can be finished even quicker. I have marked off what I have done on the peer review. The review can be found on the article.--Iankap99 (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Good job youve made a lot of progress. Unfortunately Im not going to be able to dedicate much to article developement for the next few weeks. Im trying to get the US project going again and that seems to be taking a lot of my time. Once I get it up and running again im hoping to get back into it. I did graze through the article though and here are a few things that I noticed were improvements could be made.

• Inline citations in the lede. Usually inline refs should be avoided in the lede
• Needs some prose work. Some choppy sentences
• The references needs some pruning
• References should be a consistent format
• Too many references, I would try and keep it under 100 if possible
• Some of theh references are more notes. I would create a seperate notes section with just these notes. Ths isn't a requirement but it makes it easier to read through when you have a lot of refs. Examples are 68 and 145
• Some references need to be expanded. For example 50, 52 and 119
• There are some dead links Example 130, 149, 201 and 205
• There are references that are duplicated in the Further reading or external links section. If you are using it as a ref dont use it as a further reading or external link. Example ref#1
• Blogs are typically not valid for use as references. It could be an External link though Example 202

Good luck and good job. --Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "The references needs some pruning"?

"Too many references, I would try and keep it under 100 if possible" This seems absurd, the Obama article has 300.

Thanks for the read through and suggested improvements, would you mind if I cross them off here when I finish them?--Iankap99 (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting good to know about that article. Im kinda surpirsed its an FA I see a lot of problems on that one as well. No probelm feel free to cross them off and please let me know if you need anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well feel free to start an FAR on the Obama article, I'm sure the problems will be addressed and fixed within a day.

You missed this last time around. Thanks.

What do you mean by "The references needs some pruning"?--Iankap99 (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh basically like the stuff I mentioned above. --Kumioko (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Sour economy near election time"

I noticed this comment regarding the original 1992 campaign "By election time, the economy was souring and Bush saw his approval rating plummet to just slightly over 40%." While this statement regarding Bush's approval rating being low is true, the US economy was in the state of recovery in November 1992. In the 9 months prior to election day the economy had been growing above 4%, about a million jobs had been added, and unemployment had been declining (albeit slowly). Of course, the economic downturn of 1990-91 was largely responsible for Bush's decline in popularity, however, the way the article is worded it makes you think the economy had just entered recession around election day when such was not the case.--FrankieG123 (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

please add this information to the bombing of yugoslavia section, which seems to be biased

Fareed Zakaria of Foreign Affairs wrote for New York Times that Milosevic who rules "an impoverished country that has not attacked its neighbors — is no Adolf Hitler. He is not even Saddam Hussein." (clinton said for Milosevic that he is Hitler.)

what the croatians call an occupied territory is a land which the serbs have held for more than 3 centuries. most of the same is true for the serb land in bosnia. US has punished one side in this war and unfairly. - foreign affairs sep/oct 1994

188.2.169.209 (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

ps. Michael Parenti has some good citations on the topic from establised media. There is also an informative video here.188.2.169.209 (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Proposed Merger of Bill Clinton's Page with Virginia Kelley's

Although Clinton and his mother are related, they are still seperate people. Both pages contain enough individual information about their subject to remain seperate. Such a merger would be pointless and confusing to those looking up information on either person. KosmischeSynth (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have to see something that is missing. WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria directs that just being the mother (related) of an ex-president does not make her notable and individual information is not actually a prerequisite for an article. If her son was her only notability then the article should be merged. A redirect would handle any confusion on a search. Otr500 (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

removing adoptee category

I am removing Bill Clinton from the category "American adoptees". The article refers to William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. as Clinton's father and Roger Clinton as his stepfather. Our article on Roger Clinton also refers to Bill Clinton as Roger's stepson. Bill Clinton's White House biography also refers to William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. as his father and makes no reference to an adoption by Roger Clinton. --Allen (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Role in Iranian arms trafficking to Bosnia in 1994

In Agency and the Hill: The CIA's Relationship with Congress (2008), L. Britt Snider writes:

In 1996, the Los Angeles Times published an article alleging that in 1994 the Clinton administration had given a "green light" to the government of Croatia to allow Iranian arms destined for Bosnian Muslims fighting in the former Yugoslavia to transit its country. At the same time, a UN arms embargo was in effect forbidding the shipments of arms to the former Yugoslavia, an embargo the United States had pledged to uphold. The press account also speculated the US government was engaged in a covert action, not reported to the congressional oversight committees, to facilitate the flow of arms from Iran to the Muslims in Bosnia.

A search for "Britt Snider" in Wikipedia turns up a few interesting pages where he's cited, mostly involving the CIA, over which he was inspector general at one point in his career. Is there enough information/credibility here to edit the article?—Biosketch (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

F U

Bill Clinton are vegan? EGroup (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing information in section about bin Laden

In the last paragraph (which is a single sentence) of the section entitled "Attempted capture of Osama bin Laden," reference is made to "the warning" for which no referent exists. The reference is only made clear by following the citation at the end of the sentence. I recommend beginning that paragraph with:

"Also in 1996, the State Department warned the Clinton Administration that Afghanistan would provide bin Laden a safe haven from which to pursue his plan to expand radical Islam after he was expelled from Sudan."

This sentence will put the existence sentence into context. Ted Sweetser (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Teflon Kid

The article mentioned Clinton's nickname, 'Slick Willie', but I remember him being called 'The Teflon Kid' after the Lewinsky affair. Does anyone know of a good reference for this? I did a quick web search but didn't come up with much. 94.72.235.210 (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"involving sex with a White House intern"

Without an appropriate explanation, User:Orangemarlin has twice removed two words from the lede of the article. This changed

"Later he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with a scandal involving sex with a White House intern, but was subsequently acquitted by the U.S. Senate..."

to read

"Later he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with a scandal involving a White House intern, but was subsequently acquitted by the U.S. Senate..."

This was a revert of my text, which I feel clarifies the subject of the scandal in a helpful and succinct manner.

His first edit summary was

Reverted to revision 434304094 by Jim Michael: NPOV

-- though I had asked for a discussion on the talk page regarding that, none came; instead, Orangemarlin's second edit summary was

Longstanding NPOV version. Per WP:BRD convince a consensus on talk for change. Stop edit warring..

Point one: WP:NPOV basically states that all information should be appropriately weighed and reported from an objective point of view, and I don't see why a two-word reference to the facts of the scandal should violate that criterion.

Point two: WP:CENSOR leads me to believe that a discussion of the sexual nature of the Lewinsky scandal is in no way inappropriate, and WP:CONSENSUS states that "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable." (Nor, for that matter, do I actually see any past consensus for excluding the wording in question.)

In essence, I would like to see reasons why "involving sex with an intern" is inappropriate wording, and to be informed as to exactly how it (allegedly) violates the spirit / letter of WP:NPOV. If this objection is not adequately clarified, I will revert back. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is simply to much of a POV detail without the proper context given in the sub section. Would we add this little detail we would need to add even more to explain the situation then, which would be overwhelming for the lede. Therefore I agree with Orangemarlin.TMCk (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, in what way is this POV at all - that is, if there was a sexual relationship involved in the scandal (that was the trigger of the perjury committed), exactly what is the POV aspect, as opposed to cold, hard fact? And what would we have to add? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I'm reverting this POV edits. Also Zloyvolsheb is at 3RR. I'm warning you on your page. One more edit, and I'll make sure you're blocked. Stop it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}

You're at 3RR yourself and not following WP:BRD, as you haven't even bothered to join this very discussion, which I have started per policy guidelines. To join a discussion, you need to furnish an argument, and not an edit summary insult or assertion somewhere in the edit summary box. Or an inappropriate threat to have the other party blocked so that people can discuss the content you are objecting to. Do you plan on doing that? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please take your POV elsewhere. And I am not at 3RR, you are quite incapable of counting. You have provided nothing here that would change a long-standing statement in the article. Your contributions are regularly reverted I see. Love the shit tried to force into the Obama article. Laughing my ass off. You are quite amusing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to laugh while carrying on talk page discussions in a civil manner that manages to avoid vociferant incivility attempting to be the owner of an article. I also object ot the threat of violence you've placed in my e-mail box. It's pretty immature. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If Orangemarlin's incivility is indeed toped off with a threat of violence per e-mail, this should go straight to an approbiate board.TMCk (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Infinite reach

Regarding this edit, there are two problems:

1. It's an inappropriate section heading because it includes unrelated subject matter below it like Clinton's Balkan policy.
2. It's an inappropriate section heading because it singles out on thing in the history of Clinton's presidency and foreign policy over all other concerns. His work in the Balkans and the Middle East are far more notable and memorable than a mistaken bombing in Afghanistan and Sudan.

--Louiedog (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done. Please feel free to remove inappropriate section heading's and not revert future Good Faith Edits.

--QuAzGaA 22:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Great. This is why it needs to come to the talk page once it's contested.

You made a good faith edit. I considered it and good-faith reverted it with an explanation. This put it in the category of "contested". If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. The reasons for this are two fold: in the event that a consensus is not reached at the end, a change can't be made anyway; if you've made an edit that was just reverted, the chances are very high that reinstating the edit will simply result in another reversion and frustration on both sides. Cheers.--Louiedog (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

First President born after World War 2

A discussion on the Barack Obama page about whether noting Obama is the first President born in the second half of the 20th century is relevant (it's not), I thought the parallel would be Bill Clinton, the first President born after WW2. I think, like the note that Jimmy Carter was the first President born in a hospital, the WW2 note ought to appear here in the lede. Thoughts? Oneinatrillion (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's now in the body, but not the lede. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Money made after leaving office

This edit removed the notable fact that he got $100,000 per speech. The Clintons made around $100,000,000 from books and speeches and other sources. He earned $31,000,000 between 2001-2005 alone:

• John Solomon; Matthew Mosk. "Clinton's Golden Voice date=February 23, 2007". Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Missing pipe in: |title= (help) --Javaweb (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

It's true, but it's not notable in a GA biography. Clinton has had many, many jobs earning many different amounts of money, but not all of them deserve mention. As the GA reviewer said, it was obviously placed where it was intended to show a link between Bill Clinton raising money and Hillary Clinton's political aspirations, but I couldn't find any reliable sources that claim a link. As such, we don't mention it here any more than Clinton's salary as president. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I've examined the Featured Articles on Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, and neither of these mention how much money they earned at speaking engagements. I don't see why this article should be different. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have any such intentions. Indeed this reference does not imply that either: "[2006], ... Clinton earned $9 million to $10 million on the lecture circuit....352 speeches -- but only about 20 percent were for personal income...[80%] given for no fee or for donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation, the nonprofit group he founded to pursue causes such as the fight against AIDS." Thanks for pointing out the other articles and the concerns during the GA review. --Javaweb (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Factual error in this article

I would like to report a factual error in this article. The error is that it says that WJ Clinton's presidential term began at the end of the cold war. Clinton served as POTUS after the cold war had already ended. This can be confirmed in the wiki article (as well as many, many other reliable sources as well). I request that this article remove and correct this erroneous entry in order to be accurate and correct (an important and very valid Wikipedia motivation). Clinton's term began in 1993, this is two years after the end of the cold war. The George H.W. Bush BLP should also be edited for the factual entry that GHWB served as POTUS (seeing that this is important and was included in WJC BLP) at the time that the cold war ended. The fact that Clinton had absolutely NOTHING to do with the cold war may or may not be added for clarity on this very important point in American history. Thank you and have a great day! 98.64.75.179 (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that the Cold War had ended just before he took office. When it says "He took office at the end of the Cold War...", it just means that it was right around this time period. Do you think it would be better to say "He took office just after the Cold War ended..."? – Quadell ^(talk) 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I just mean that is a factual error. Why even say anything about the cold war at all? I suppose it could say he was the first president elected after the cold war was over or had concluded (1991). It made me look at GHWB BLP and it says absolutely nothing about the cold war at all. So, I mean to say that Clinton did enough without associating him with something that his presidency had nothing to do with. GHWB BLP wouldn't state anything about the Cuban missile crisis,watergate, or the Falkland war, so why is the cold reference even in this BLP? Also, the Clinton Foundation has many causes with which it contributes support and aid to, perhaps, it should be expanded in that regard as wellrather than just stating aids support (good cause, but not the only important one). Thanks.... Why is this article even locked down from being edited by others? 65.8.150.136 (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Statue of Bill Clinton in Kosovo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Statue of Bill Clinton in Kosovo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

National Debt figures in relation to Federal Budget surplus

I believe that it bears mentioning that even though a Federal Budget surplus was recorded by the CBO, the National Debt rose each year President Clinton held office. While this increase is not unique to Clinton, it is a fact (uncontested by OMB historical figures, CBO, and Treasury) that it happened during his presidency. Not only does it demonstrate that the accounting methods for reporting budget surpluses and deficits are inaccurate, it shows that even this President, widely regarded as a fiscal conservative, was unable to avoid increasing the National Debt of the United States.

As far as the sources I cited being primary or secondary, I consider the links to the Treasury secondary. They report the numbers that are recorded in a balance statement or accounting workbook (primary) on a website (secondary).

Also, if still considered primary, I would cite the following statement from the policy on primary sources located on the Wikipedia No Original Research project page:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. Wikipedia No Original Research Project Page

In this case, I think the Treasury website is very straightforward. It shows the total end of fiscal year debt for each year, grouped into decades. Two links were required to show years ending in 1990s and then for year 2000. Rlantzy2112 (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what we call original research. Editors don't get their provide their own analysis of what sources have to say, so no go. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. What analysis is being provided? Answer: none. If an editor were to say "During President Clinton's tenure, he increased the debt from X to Y" that would be analysis. Simply stating a straightforward fact as such

The gross federal debt increased over the years of the claimed surplus from $5.4 trillion to $5.6 trillion.

does not mean any analysis nor original research was done. It happened, plain and simple. The policy I cited allows for use of a primary source in this case. Perhaps a rewording to state:

However, according to the US Department of the Treasury, the gross federal debt increased over the years of the surplus.

would remedy the issue? Rlantzy2112 (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This issue would be best remedied by you finding something better to do within the Wikipedia rather than dredge up old, dusty right-wing talking points regarding the Clinton era and budget surplus numbers. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So then you don't disagree with my reasoning, but you'd rather make this an ad hominem attack? Rlantzy2112 (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

According to PolitiFact, while the gross federal debt did increase, the public debt decreased. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 01:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This is only the case because when the Social Security Trust Funds run a surplus the revenues from the purchase of Treasury securities are used to balance the budget. All administrations have done it, but it bears mentioning. Surpluses don't mean much in the shadow of increasing debt. Rlantzy2112 (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon of a death-row inmate?

The article states "Clinton was the first President to pardon a death-row inmate since the federal death penalty was reintroduced in 1988.[30]". I think it should say that "President Clinton issued a clemency order to a death-row inmate, commuting his sentence from the death penalty to life in prison." This would not imply that a murderer was set free. This site here lists the executive order in question: http://www.justice.gov/pardon/clinton_comm.htm with the innmate named as David Ronald Chandler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.112.118 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Error under "Presidential Campaign"

Under the presidential campaign, it states: The election gave Democrats full control of the United States Congress.[3] It was the first time this had occurred since Democrats controlled the 95th United States Congress during the Jimmy Carter presidency in the late 1970s.[42]

This is completely untrue, as even an examination of the linked websites will verify. For example, the 96th and 100th Congresses were Democrat controlled, as were the 101st and 102nd. Democrats maintained control for the 103rd Congress, when Clinton got elected. In fact, the more notable event was during Clinton's re-election, where Congress turned Republican for the first time since the 83rd Congress, in the 1950s. Someone please correct the article. 24.126.30.61 (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, the old wording was awkward. The claim being made was that this was the first time in 12 years the same party controlled both the White House and Congress. Wording now clarified to that effect. Tarc (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times Book Review Further Reading resource

• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/books/review/back-to-work-why-we-need-smart-government-for-a-strong-economy-by-bill-clinton-book-review.html ‘Back To Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy’ by BILL CLINTON, Reviewed by JEFF MADRICK "Bill Clinton presents his views on the country’s challenges and explains his plan for creating jobs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

DeMolay

Clinton was member of the fraternal young mens organization, served as Master Councilor (Presiding Officer) of his Chapter and was selected for the DeMolay Hall of Famein 1988 when he was still Governor of Arkansas. Alienlenny (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)alienlenny

Edit request on 20 January 2012

The persondata structure at the bottom of the markup lists the wrong birth date for Bill Clinton. Here is the current persondata:

{{Persondata |NAME=Clinton, Bill |ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Clinton, William Jefferson (full name) |SHORT DESCRIPTION=42nd President of the United States (1993–2001) |DATE OF BIRTH=August 8, 1946 |PLACE OF BIRTH=Hope, Arkansas |DATE OF DEATH= |PLACE OF DEATH= }}

Here is what it should be: {{Persondata |NAME=Clinton, Bill |ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Clinton, William Jefferson (full name) |SHORT DESCRIPTION=42nd President of the United States (1993–2001) |DATE OF BIRTH=August 19, 1946 |PLACE OF BIRTH=Hope, Arkansas |DATE OF DEATH= |PLACE OF DEATH= }}

128.30.44.116 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"New Democrat"

It says many times than Clinton "has been described as a New Democrat". The impression is given the media coined the phrase, but in reality it was his 1992 campaign that thought it up. Prehaps the wording should be changed.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bill Clinton/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr. President,

As promised, in honor of your 65th Birthday, I will accept the responsibility and honor of being your reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review tony.--Iankap99 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Iankap99,

I almost always fail GACs when I get to 5 or 6 uncited paragraphs. Each paragraph of a well-structured article is suppose to present a new topic. If any paragraph has no citations a topic is without citation. You may want to skip ahead of me and make sure I don't get to a high total of uncited paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

• Why does WP have the 19th as his birthday, but the Clinton Center show the 13th?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  Weird. That has to be a typo at the Clinton Center. Google "Clinton August 19" and you get source after source giving that as his birthday. Google "Clinton August 13" and you get all unrelated stuff about events in Clinton, Illinios or whatever. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I rarely review such highly trafficked ground. From my experience, this is a well-crafted LEAD. I have some very minor issues with what I see, but reserve judgement on it until I have reviewed the whole article and can determine whether it is a proper summary of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Should the link to left-wing politics be used for the term left-of-center.

Good idea--Iankap99 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think the phrase "from Yale Law School." should be followed by where they met. However, the text in the body does not support this addendum, making me wonder if it is sufficiently broad. It is my understanding that this is where they met.

I added it, it fits well and it is indeed where they met. This is documented in the Law School Part.--Iankap99 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Is began dating = meeting? I ask because I recall seeing some special where he describes the first time he saw her and talks about later dating her.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This may be sufficient given its relative import, but I just thought I recalled more of a story being out there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• The lead is only 2351 characters of readable prose, while the article is 52587. I think that for any article over 50KB we could use the LEAD more fully. I think we should be shooting for 2800-3000. Again, I reserve the right to suggest more content including the following

  Chelsea

  Rhodes Scholar

  Georgetown alum

  From Arkansas--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

  The lede is now 2776 characters of prose. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• After thinking further about this matter. The following two sentences should be considered separately for modification and inclusion:

  Clinton is an alumnus of Georgetown University where he was Phi Beta Kappa and earned a Rhodes Scholarship to attend University College, Oxford.

  Clinton was born and raised in Arkansas where he grew to become both a student leader and a skilled musician.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded the lede, including your suggestions and rearranging a little. I sourced the claim that they met at Yale. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember a LEAD is suppose to be structured in 4 paragraphs or less. In this case I think it should be exactly 4 paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why are we linking to Governor and Arkansas rather than List of Governors of Arkansas (and maybe Arkansas later)?
• Similarly why Senator and New York rather than List of United States Senators from New York?
• Link Congressional Budget Office
• The LEAD is generally suffering from blue text saturation. You might consider remove citations and making sure that each one is in the text where the point is suppose to be elaborated upon. Not absolutely necessary considering the appearance of Barack Obama and W, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Debating in my mind whether linking to World War II would be informative to the reader. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Great feedback. I have implemented all these suggestions (except WWII, since it's only mentioned as an era, not as a war). – Quadell ^(talk) 19:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Early life and career

• "Following Bill's birth, to study nursing, his mother Virginia Dell Cassidy (1923–1994), traveled to New Orleans, leaving Bill in Hope with grandparents, Eldridge and Edith Cassidy, who owned and operated a small grocery store." is a grammatical bear and needs to be split into two sentences.
• I would refer to Roger Clinton, Sr., using the Sr.
• "The other was listening to Martin Luther King's 1963 I Have a Dream speech. He also memorized Dr. King's speech." Completely loses the spirit of the source which had causality. The speech inspired the memorization.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have fixed all these problems. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

College and law school years

• I would merge the two war draft related paragraphs since the second is a bit short.
• I am a habitual WP:OVERLINKer, but I would link the following terms: draft, aide and notarized.

*The WP:CAPTION is ungrammatical, suggesting that he ran for election the year he received his degree, which is almost certainly untrue.

• • at which is probably better than during which.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • True. I like "Clinton ran for President of the Student Council while attending the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University." even better. More direct. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• You need to link to George McGovern presidential campaign, 1972 and possibly both United States presidential election, 1972. I would suggest "Clinton took a job with the 1972 McGovern campaign and was assigned to lead McGovern's effort in Texas." --> Clinton took a job with the McGovern campaign for the 1972 United States presidential election and was assigned to lead McGovern's effort in Texas.
• Also, since this is a political article where such links might be important revise "Clinton worked with Ron Kirk, who was later elected mayor of Dallas twice, future governor of Texas, Ann Richards" as "Clinton worked with future two-term mayor of Dallas, Ron Kirk, future governor of Texas, Ann Richards"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• As mentioned above, this section should include a statement about when and where the Clintons met. With a couple like this, the public domain probably has a record of whether they met at a debate club, in the library, at a Harvard-Yale game, a fraternity party or whatnot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Law_school also fails to mention where they met. However it includes a discussion about a summer where Clinton cancelled his plans to live with her. That should be mentioned here if you can properly source it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Great suggestions. I have implemented them all. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Political career 1978–1992

• The incumbent, John Paul Hammerschmidt, defeated Clinton by a 52% to 48% margin. should be clarified to The Democratic/Republican incumbent, John Paul Hammerschmidt, defeated Clinton by a 52% to 48% margin in the primary/general election.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Since it was his first election, "Without opposition in the general election, Clinton was elected Arkansas Attorney General in 1976." should probably be preceded by some primary election information if there was one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• It would be good if the other gubernatorial elections had articles, but it is not your obligation to make them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• "In 1982, he was again elected governor and kept this job for ten years." needs a citation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• New Democrat link is redundant with above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Both uncited paragraphs needs to be merged or expanded as well as cited.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Pine Bluff Commercial sounds like the kind of publication (newspaper or magazine in all likelihood) that should be italicized.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• You need to merge or expand the other small paragraph (slick willie).
• This section seems deficient on things I would be looking for. I want to see some relationships here. I though he developed relationships with people who he took to Washington. Weren't there any key Arkansas Cabinet members worthy of a mention here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You need to tell me why I should not be looking in this section to see first mentions of Arkansas people he took with him to Washington.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • This would be the place. But as I said below, I couldn't find anyone in his cabinet that he brought from Arkansas. Most were veterans from the Carter administration. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• "but it was criticized for length." needs explanation. Was he too brief or too extensive? How long did he speak?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed these. But the "slick Willie" sentence seemed trivial, since the nickname is not mentioned elsewhere in the article and it's a phrase in an editorial in a minor paper. So I removed it instead of merging. (Not everything deserves mention in a GA biograhpy.) About the relationships bit, I looked through all 34 members of Clinton's cabinet, and only one (McLarty) lived in Arkansas while the Clintons did. And I can't find any information about them working together or establishing a relationship, besides McLarty deciding not to run against Clinton in his first run as governor. That doesn't seem important enough to mention, to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Although the term is derogatory, it is not really appropriate to remove it from a 55KB article. We should document its origin since we have a source. It is used in popular media such as NY Times, MSNBC, etc. Look at this headline. It is not you or I calling him this. It is a known nickname and not something we are suppose to whitewash from WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Whitewash" is a little harsh. We're talking about Pine Bluff Commercial, a newspaper that doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. (The Online Edition appears to have been designed back in the Clinton administration, and not updated since.) If the nickname is notable, that's fine, but the "first used" factoid still seems trivial to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am open to a convincing argument to the contrary about WP:BLP related issues or some such however. I can see that Dubya is not in GWBs article, although we know that W. exists. However, we have a source. If the guy who gave him the nickname was a heckler at a town hall or a neighbor, notability of the source is not relevant here. We have a source that is reliable, I think. The consideration here is WP:BLP for important people. If he was a sax player, football player, rapper, or some such, Slick Willie might be in bold in the WP:LEAD. I am very open to BLP arguments. However, the notability of the source is not relevant, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. consider which nickname is most closely associated with him "Slick Willie", "Boy Governor" or "Comeback Kid" and say which should be removed from the article first based on their enduring nature.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No no, it's not a BLP concern. I'm just thinking, if it's the nickname itself that's notable (and not which paper said it first), perhaps it should go in the "Public image" section? I'll try inserting something there, and see what you think. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I was actually hoping that you could teach me a BLP reason why not. Otherwise it seems WP:POV to include his positive nicknames and not his negative one. O.K. so why don't politicians have all their nicknames in the first paragraph and why aren't negative ones included at all like normal people.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Grin. Someone as discussed as Clinton is going to have a lot of names. We have "Slick Wille" and "MTV President" (negative, sourced, notable) and "Comeback Kid" (positive, sourced, notable). I don't think "Boy Governor" should stay, as I say below. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I have a long history of being pro-nickname and in my last substantive debate was in favor of The Bear Jew being included in the WP:LEAD. I would also be in favor of having "Billary" included in the Presidency of Bill Clinton (said without looking to see if it is).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you aren't dealing with Hurricane Irene today. While you are silent, I have dug up enough on "Boy Governor" to support its inclusion as well: NY Times, Washington Post story devoted to nicknames, Boy Clinton book.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Boy Governor is highly legitimized by the second page of the following google search: Clinton "Boy Governor"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No hurricane problems, as of yet. I moved the "Slick Willie" moniker information to the "Public image" section, where I think it fits better. As for "Boy Governor", I'll discuss below. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

1992 presidential campaign

• Due to his youthful appearance, he was often called the "Boy Governor". needs a citation.
  • I'd say it needs to be removed. I did a lot of searching, and it looks totally non-notable to me. (Clinton isn't on the first page of Google results for "Boy Governor", and "Boy Governor" isn't anywhere in the search "Bill Clinton nickname".) I can find a few books that call him "the boy governor", but none that claim it to be relevant (unlike "Slick Willie" and "Comeback Kid"). – Quadell ^(talk) 22:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed. I'm not saying no one ever called him that; I'm saying it's not a notable nickname. Of the sources you mentioned above, one calls him "Boy Governor of Arkansas" once in a throwaway line in a long book, without mentioning if anyone besides the author called him that or why it was important. (I'd say "Boy Governor of Arkansas" is different than "Boy Governor".) Once source calls him "local boy and boy Governor", without a capital B, which doesn't seem like a nickname. And the other mentions it only to say that the name didn't stick. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Did you check the google search: Clinton "Boy Governor"? It is mentioned in a lot of books. Saying it didn't stick is a little strong. Once he grew into the role of President it was an anachronism. It would be like saying Little Stevie didn't stick to Stevie Wonder or something. It is more like he outgrew it. No one calls him that anymore. He may forever be Slick Willie as long as he is a smooth talker, but it is no more of a valid nickname.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't say it didn't stick, the source says that, grouping it with other non-notable nicknames such as "Kid Clinton" and "Young Smoothie". I can find reliable sources that say the nickname "Little Stevie" was significant for Stevie Wonder. I can find RSes that say "Slick Willie" was significant in Clinton's life. I can't find any that say "Boy Governor" was ever significant. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
        • "Boy Governor" g-tests quite well. It endured well into his tenure as a national politician. Compare google search results of Clinton "Young Smoothie" (non existant), Clinton "Kid Clinton" (spurious) and Clinton "Boy Governor". The latter has many significant results. Time Magazine, MSNBC, NY Times, ESPN, books, and a host of other sources, [3], [4], one source explaining the use of the term. I would mention it as a referent rather than a nickname since it is so often in lower case. It is used as if it is a common term that wikipedia should have an article about and everyone should know. However, it is only use in association with him. I consider it our duty to clarify to the reader the meaning and use of the term.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, you make some good points. Mine isn't the only opinion here that counts, after all. :) In the "Governor of Arkansas" section, I added "Due to his youthful appearance, Clinton was often called the "Boy Governor", a name that stuck through his presidential campaign." with a citation. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
            • I hope we are serving the readers well. Admittedly, in terms of derisiveness, it falls somewhere between Boy Toy and Boy Wonder, but it is enduring and a part of the domain of information that the reader could want to search for in this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• Now that we ARE including it, let's talk about its use. What I think might be more appropriate than "a name that stuck through his presidential campaign" might be something "a referrent that continues to be used to refer to him during his gubernatorial era on occasion". Then I might use three of the many refs (the one there now and two others) I have pointed out above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I guess it's not really a name. And it was used after the campaign. I've changed the prose and added refs. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• Each Super Bowl has an article. Was this Super Bowl XXVI? Link whichever one it was.
  • Done.
    • Why did you pipe it. Let the reader know which one it is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Sure thing. Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• "On election night, Clinton labeled himself "The Comeback Kid", earning a firm second-place finish." should probably be "On election night, Clinton labeled himself "The Comeback Kid" for earning a firm second-place finish."
  • Done, and I changed "Clinton labeled himself" to "News outlets labeled him" (since that's what the sources say).
• Throw Super Tuesday in there wherever it fits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.
• The two paragraphs that detail the meat of the campaign are both stubby and in need of merger or expansion. Since the article is only 52.6KB we have 7.4KB to play with and this is a good section to use expansion capacity. Currently, it is a bit hard to understand the flow of events, but further detail could clear that up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's going to take a little research. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • After checking out the online sources listed, and a few of my own, I'm confident that the section now adequately covers the 92 campaign. I've added a little material, rearranged a bit, and tightened the sourcing. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.0% of the vote) against Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist Ross Perot, who ran as an independent (18.9% of the vote) on a platform focusing on domestic issues; a significant part of Clinton's success was Bush's steep decline in public approval." should be moved to the beginning of the next paragraph. That is better sequencing and fills out a stubby paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Good idea, done.
• "It was the first time this had occurred since the Jimmy Carter presidency in the late 1970s." needs a citation and could use a congress number like 95th United States Congress or whichever one it is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It is. Done and sourced.
• Move the last paragraph for proper sequencing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.

Presidency, 1993–2001

• I think probably we may have gotten overzealous with our reorg. It seems that most modern president's have very distinct Domestic policy sections. Much of the present chronology should be under Domestic policy, but I am not enough of a political expert to say what does and doesn't belong. Which ever is the majority(domestic or non-domestic) of the chronology should stay in place and an other issues section should be created. Maybe everything in the chronology should be domestic policy, but I am not sure. In truth, I am not sure what is left after domestic and foreign policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Eventually we are going to have to move the quote boxes and images around for effect.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm just about all Clintoned out, after spending around 25 hours on what I naively thought would be a relatively simple improvement. I'm willing to finish up cleaning up the references and performing minor cleanups here and there, but I just don't have it in me for yet another reorg. If it doesn't make GA, I'll totally understand... this article required a lot more work than it appeared at first glance, and I probably would have failed it outright if I had been the reviewer. (I appreciate your patience and work staying with it through all this.) Anyway, I'll do my best shot with this current go, but what I don't get done today I'm just going to have to leave for others. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 7:53 am, Today (UTC−4)

Obama, Dubya and Reagan all have sub artilces for Domestic policy and sections in the bio relating to it. H.W. does not. However, his bio still has a section for this topic with a more general redirect. At some point in the future this article will likely have a specialized article for domestic policy. At that time a reorg here will be mandatory. It would be nice now, but I understand. The article still complies with MOS in strict chrono order.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

We are still going to have to make the article look good. I always do my image review at the end in part because often when things get moved around, images get squeezed out or added. There will be a reorg of images and an image review. WRT images, We are going to want a bit more alternating of images and an occaissional Template:Multiple image to help do so. See articles like Missouri River and Vince Van Gogh. We are also going to want to reformat quote boxes and move them so that they are not opposite images. See Clint Eastwood.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a first attempt at it. I'm sure it's better, but I'm not sure if it's right yet. What do you think? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I will have to do an image review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

First term, 1993–1997

• It isn't clear that there is a thematic reason for this section not to be chronological.
  • Exactly. The whole presidential section is organizationally messy and confusing, with some parts chronological and others sectioned into themes, without reference to chronological order. After thinking it over a great deal, and juggling sections around a lot, I think it's best to have a "Presidency" section with four subsections: "1st term", "2nd term", "Military and Foreign events", and "Judicial appointments". And no further subsections. Each section is chronological in itself. I think having subsections within each term is inherently problematic, since it ruins the chronological organization. (There's the budget, then the travel office controversy, then healthcare reform, etc. Either each paragraph has to have a section, which is stubby, or none of them should.) The reason I think the "Military and Foreign events" and "Judicial appointment" sections are exceptions and should be separate, is that they integrate elements from both terms, are largely independent of the material in the "term" sections, and it have "main article" hatnotes that cover both terms. Read through the new organization and tell me what you think. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • First of all, I would not have known what to suggest. Thank you for taking the initiative to do something sensible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Did you actually make "Military and Foreign events" a subsection of "2nd term"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Oops! That was an accident. Now fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• presumably the intro before this subsection is cited within the detailed succeeding text.
  • It is now, and expanded with info that had previously only been stated in the lede. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Link budget deficit
  • Done.– Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• The February 17, 1993 paragraph needs to be wikified with links to terms such as: joint session of Congress, middle class, Robert Rubin, Goldman Sachs, Barack Obama and George W. Bush.
  • Reformulated, reordered, and wikified. (Took out one particular advisor, since the sources didn't support him having more influence in this than others.) – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Link to whitehouse.gov and call it by name.
  • Done– Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Instead of linking the abbreviation IIRIRA, link the full text. Why does this come before the 93 travel office controversy?
  • Linked, and order changed. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Note that I moved the parenthesis outside of the link (and fixed a typo).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Oops, my mistake. Thanks! – Quadell ^(talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• There should be a {{main}} tag for White House FBI files controversy.
  • Done. Now that I have de-sectioned, I've linked in the paragraph text instead. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Does all the death penalty content belong in this section? It seems to belong in earlier sections.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Moved. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • To clarify: some is in the Governor of Arkansas section, and some in the 1992 presidential campaign section. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Why is the Senators Ted Kennedy – a Democrat paragraph in the first term?
  • Moved. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Why does Whitehouse.gov come before a lot of the 1993 stuff?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Order changed. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• It is not clear why some topics are subsectioned and some are not. I think the section should be redone either chronologically or thematically. Most of the content in the section is just thrown in (not in order and not by theme), with a few things subsectioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. See my comment above. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think each paragraph in the first and second term should be written to demonstrate to the reader that it is chronological. Thus, in many paragraphs the month needs to be added. E.G., you might want to say "national health care system ultimately died [with such and such legislative act that occured on MMM DD, YYYY].--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to rewrite the paragraphs to include more prominent date information. In some case, I could not find the actual date, and used the month and year. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't necessarily mean to add so many DDs, but adding all those months will help the reader. We now need to smooth out the text so that not so many paragraphs begin On Month day, Year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, I think I'd misunderstood the request. I've now reworded so that there is more sentence variety. Some paragraphs now start with the date, but most simply incorporate it in a more natural position. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Second term, 1997–2001

• Double check that 92 description as populist and 96 description as reform are correct for Perot.
  • Yes. He was independent in 1992 (though "populist" is a good characterization) and "Reform" in 1996. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• I would extend "but retained control of both" with "houses of the XXth United States Congress".
  • Done
• Link Arkansas Supreme Court, No-fly zone
  • Done.
• I think the first term should have its own Military and foreign events subsection even if it is only the first two paragraphs of this section.
  • See my comment above. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Link to 1998 State of the Union Address rather than State of the Union Address.
  • Good catch. Done.
• Have you previously linked biological and chemical weapon? Link now if not.
  • Done.
• Spell out Permanent normal trade relations on first use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.
• Whitewater controversy section should merge or expand stubby paragraphs.
  • Merged.
• The small paragraphs in the Attempted capture of Osama bin Laden section should be merged or expanded.
  • Merged.
• Judicial appointments leaves me wondering about his success rate. Can you provide statistics on what percent of his nominations were approved.
  • 84%. Added. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Also, what about other non-judicial nominations throughout government. Are any statistics kept?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I can't find any reliable statistics on this. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I had this article in the back of my mind from working on the Richard Cordray article. Now that I look back at it, I see id does not even mention Obama's non-judicial percentage. Maybe this is an uncommon stat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Public opinion

• The graph belies the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Public image

• Can you break up that long Toni Morrison sentence.
• Why is the Jones case described in four paragraphs all of which are stubby?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• "a denial that became the basis for the impeachment charge of perjury." needs a citation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. I rearranged this greatly, removing trivia and sectioning allegations of sexual misconduct into its own article, summarizing in this article. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Post-presidential career

• You imply a connection between his wife entering office and him giving speeches. You do not mention her campaign costs as a reason, which I think you mean to imply.
  • Please incorporate the following type of stories: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/24/clinton-turns-husbands-charity-retire-campaign-debt/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004883-503544.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32320.html --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Those links all have to do with Bill Clinton raising money to pay off debt after her unsuccessful Presidential bid in 2008. Would you like me to add this to the "2008 presidential election" section? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • It is your discretion to use them in that section or the next. I trust your judgement. You should also work in http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/30/bill-clinton-2007-speech-haul-tops-10-million/ --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Good find, that's certainly the best source yet. I incorporated it and a previous source, along with the information therein, into the "2008 presidential election" section. (The second sentence and last sentence of that section are both new.) – Quadell ^(talk) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't think that the reference chosen supports the final sentence. Add the other two sources that I suggested.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Oops, you're right, I'd misread which Clinton was referred to in that article. I put the better sources in. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal comment needs a reference.
• Say My Life was a best seller too.
• Give month and year for both 2005 events and if possible the months for the creation of the funds.
• Give year for Yeltsin speech.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I found no sources claiming financial motivation, so I rewrote the initial sentence to adhere better to the source. I fixed all other concerns here. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Honors and accolades

• It seems to me that most president's should have separate main list articles for things named after them. You might want to start one.
• There should be a category for such articles whether or not it is specific to presidents or not.
• Where any things named after him for his service as governor rather than as President?
  • Actually, you probably don't get things named after you right away as a governor and by the time things are named after him he was already Prez.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• You do not mention any civic structures other than schools. What about office buildings, hospitals, annual events, etc. Do any such things exist yet?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Even though each president gets one, Clinton Presidential Center is an honor of sorts as a structured dedicated to and named after him. Why isn't it in this section and the dedicated article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Good point, I added the library to both. Although there are many "Clinton" hospitals and colleges, I can't find any that were named after the president. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• As a formality cite his Man of the Year awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think the grammy's are such a highly publicized award, that they deserve mention here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The Grammy info is in there. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• P.S. when you create a separate article you actually enumerate schools, statues and streets.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've done that. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Listing the honorary degrees in the refs is odd. Put that content in the article with an enumaration of Schools, years and type of honorary degree, if known. (none of that is required in this GAC, but since you have my attention, I will give you advice).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As suggested, I sectioned this into its own article with its own categorization, and merely summarized here. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• The refs are still a big problem as noted below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's my next step. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The nested honorary degree refs look odd. You should format them properly in the list and honors article with full enumeration in a list format. Here properly cite three prominent ones.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I think you should just say several here with three citations. The reader can to the full list. There is no clear rationale why you named some and not others. Over time alums from other schools he gets honorary degrees from will want to add their school here. Just say several with three citations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay. I tried a way that does that, while still adding both types of degrees. Does this look good to you? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Also in terms of distributing content from here to the list article, make sure that has more detail. Schools and statues should be listed there individually.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Further thought: I would have a section for honorary degrees with bulletpoints, a section for buildings and structures (schools, his library and statues) with bullet points, and a section with honors with bulletpoints.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Since that is forked in the other article, it does not really fall under this review any more. However, I hope you consider my advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Also, why isn't the pictured award included?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I added info for the pictured award. I'll also do more in the List of honors and awards earned by Bill Clinton later on. But I think all issues about this section of this article are resolved. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Is being Special UN envoy an honorific? Is it like being a US Ambassador? does it deserve a succession box or to be included in honors and awards?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Diplomatic rank#Special envoy, it's just an ad hoc thing without succession. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

O.K. so it does not belong in succession boxes. Is it an honor?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a tough one. I've been thinking about it a bit. It's certainly an honor to be appointed "Special Envoy", but it's also an honor to be elected governor and president. Those two shouldn't be mentioned in the "Honors and accolades" section. It seems to me that the difference is, governor and president are jobs. They're responsibilities that happen to be honored as well. Whereas there's no responsibility that comes with getting an honorary degree or having a school named after you; it's purely an honor. If that's the important difference, then "Special Envoy" is certainly a job with responsibilities, and belongs in the "Post-presidential career" section (where it is) and not the "Honors and accolades" section. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just had a look at List of nicknames of United States presidents. It seems that we forgot "Bubba" (which I recall) and "Teflon Bill" (which I oddly never have heard of before). It seems that they are missing "MTV President" and "Boy Governor". Can you synch us up. Make sure that all the proper redirects head to his bio.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I brought over Bubba and Teflon Bill, sourced, in the Public Image section. I made and checked redirects and dabs to Clinton. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if that list was synched with this article too, but not required.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I just stumbled across an issue while fixing redirects. I was contemplating adding {{Redirect|Boy Governor|Governor of the Michigan Territory and the first governor of the State of Michigan|Stevens T. Mason}} here and {{Redirect|The Boy Governor|42nd President of the United States and former Arkansas Governor|Bill Clinton}} there, but I decided to go with {{Redirect2|The Boy Governor|Boy Governor|42nd President of the United States and former Arkansas Governor|Bill Clinton}} there. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's how I would have done it as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Where should a "First Black President" redirect point (Clinton or Obama)? Should there be a {{redirect}} hatnote on the other?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think "first black president" was a reference, but not a nickname. I don't think it should rd or dab to Clinton at all, personally. As for Obama, many other countries had black presidents before the U.S. So I'd leave that one alone, personally. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please do your best to alternate sides with images. Consider quote boxes as images (reformat these quote boxes to the same format as Clint Eastwood's). Use Template:Multiple image as necessary (see Vincent Van Gogh).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:NAFTA signing.jpg needs to have its license determined.
  • The source doesn't indicate that this is actually PD. I searched online using TinEye and Google reverse image search, but couldn't find any information about it's license. So I nominated it for deletion on Commons and removed it from this article. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• File:President Clinton by Molly Gilliam, 1999 (DOD 990505-F-7597G-005) (514619639).jpg needs a proper PD license.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• File:FEMA - 14697 - Photograph by Ed Edahl taken on 09-05-2005 in Texas.jpg & File:Hillary Clinton Bill Chelsea on parade.jpg need caption tweeks. Full sentences end will full stop periods. When it is not a full sentence, no full stop.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Right-o. Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• {{Personality rights}} should probably on his civilian years photos before and after his public service years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good, images are more my cup of tea. I'll try to do this today or tomorrow. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All finished. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I question the organization of parts of the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   a) The article presents numerous literature references as further reading, but relies on online sources for its text. Much more could be done with traditional primary sources. b) There are places where more citations are needed. c) I do not believe there is any original research in the article although citations are spotty in a few places.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There are numerous things that might be added but nothing is really too detailed or far removed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Image review forthcoming

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article is a challenging responsibility for its editors. In this case the editor is a less frequent Wikipedia contributor than is often the case. I have slowed the pace of my review to give extra response time. Unfortunately, that has not seemed to help. I have been quite thorough in this review, due to the level of importance of the subject. I hope that the article can be improved in response to my detailed concerns. As is standard, I will evaluate progress of this nomination in seven days. The 7-day hold period begins now. Good luck to the nominator and anyone else who might chip in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments on other reviews:

Talk:Bill Clinton/GA1 (November 2008)

• References still a problem
  • {The New York Times, 02/16/93, p. 1 is not a proper citation).
  • Accessdates and dates needed for online sources.
  • Provide author when known. Many examples including "Clinton backs NTR's environment foundation". The Irish Independent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There are a half dozen dead links and a couple suspicious ones according to the toolbox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive3 (September 2009)

• The nominator made some initial responses to the extensive PR3 in the first 24 hours but lost steam.
• Many of that review's issues remain unaddressed, including chronology/organization and stubby paragraphs.

Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive4 (October 2010)

• Again the nominator (who is the same one as for this review) lost steam.

Overall, I am concerned that this biography is one where nominators who feel fondly of the subject are merely looking for a quick "It looks O.K." response when a lot of work needs to be done. This article will not meet the ever-increasing WP:WIAGA standards without substantial effort.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been unexpectedly busy but, even if this fails I will make the corrections and resubmit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't you make the corrections from the PR4 before submitting?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to take over this nomination. It's a long article, so give me a few days. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no rush. Often, on long reviews I go through several weeks of back and forth. E.G., Talk:Missouri River/GA1 took from 2/9 until 4/6.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I am just realizing that you are the same editor that came to the rescue at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/GA1. I am confident that this review is in good hands now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope I have now resolved all necessary issues. It's a very long nomination review, however, and I might have missed something. I've now put in far more hours than I ever expected to on this nomination -- it's a tough one! There may still be areas we respectfully disagree on details, but I hope the current version is judged to pass all GA criteria. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Still working on "Honors and accolades" and the references. I think that's all that's left... – Quadell ^(talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now completely overhauled the references. A few egregiously bad refs have been redone. All broken link have been repaired or replaced. Missing date or author information has been supplied where needed, and access dates have been supplied or updated as needed. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"After a failed attempt at health care reform, Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in 1994, for the first time in forty years." — this is something of a misplaced modifier; it wasn't the Republicans' attempt. —Designate (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point, fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Two years later, in 1996, " — eh? —Designate (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a little redundant. I suppose we can count on our readers to be able to add 94 2. Removed. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost done

• O.K. We are almost done. Things to keep in mind are as follows:
  1. At some point we want to format a Domestic Policy section or dedicated article
  2. You want to fill out the article that you have forked for honors and accolades
  3. Watch for the creation of gubernatorial election articles
  4. I sort of await a response on UN Envoy
• We have moved the article way up the quality assessment scale and it passes WP:WIAGA
• Basically, we just need to sit back and look at the article and reconsider the WP:LEAD. The LEAD prose is now at 2811. I think 2800-2900 is about where we want to be. For a WP:BLP we should leave a little room for future events and I think 3000 is full-size.
  • First, I am trying to determine the significance of Special Envoy. Is it really something that belongs in the LEAD?
    • In my opinion, it's the most important thing he's done since leaving office, so I'd say it belongs. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking at the TOC I think the only section not mentioned in the LEAD is section 4. Either it should not be a separate section or it should be represented in the LEAD.
  • Have we adequately represented his most important accomplishments (After NAFTA, does any additional specific legislation deserve to be named in the LEAD)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You're right about the campaign. I'll try to add something to the lede about it. I think we've covered the most important presidential accomplishments in the lede, though that's pretty subjective. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
      • As an outside opinion: I'd expect health care attempt, NAFTA, and welfare reform at a minimum, and they're all there. Other than that, maybe SCHIP but you'd have to spell it out, and the lead's pretty wordy already. —Designate (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
        • What about Don't ask, don't tell ? Does that belong in the LEAD? Is State Children's Health Insurance Program more important than any content currently in the LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
          • It's borderline. I'd say it's acceptable to include DADT (though difficult to summarize in one sentence), and acceptable to include SCHIP, but it's also acceptable to omit (in my opinion) and only mention in the article.
            • I have some more suggestions to get back some LEAD real estate. For DADT, a phrase something like "Don't ask, don't tell, a controversial intermediate step to full gay military integration."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
              • If we can find the space for it in the LEAD with this phrasing, we would need to include a mention of the more recent Obama legislation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Also, do the words Lewinsky and Whitewater belong in the LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Lewinsky's name isn't in the lede, but the scandal is, and I think that's as it should be. (The scandal is very important to understanding Clinton's second term, but the person really isn't.) Whitewater was mostly about friends of Clinton, but not Clinton directly. (If they'd found anything, I'd say it should be in the lede. But they didn't.) – Quadell ^(talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Since we have pushed up toward the high end of the LEAD length, could "Clinton ran for President in 1992, defeating the incumbent George H. W. Bush despite the very high approval ratings he had held the previous year." be recast as "Clinton unseated incumbent President George H. W. Bush in 1992 despite Bush's high approval ratings"?
          • Yes, that's better wording, thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Also could "a failed attempt at" just be "failed"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Hm. Seems to me that the attempt failed, not the reform. It wasn't even a single bill, but more of a general idea of reforming healthcare that never went into effect. So I think "failed attempt" is a good way to put it. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
            • O.K. How about "failed attempt at health care reform" -> "failed health care reform attempt"
        • "Clinton was re-elected and became" -> "the re-elected Clinton was"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
        • "his wife Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign and subsequently in that of President Barack Obama" seems overly wordy. Do we need to say "his wife" and could "that of President Barack Obama" be "President Barack Obama's"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I reworded this a bit. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
        • "Clinton teamed with George W. Bush to form the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund." -> "Clinton and George W. Bush formed the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund."?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I opted for the other shortening, below. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
        • "Clinton was born and raised in Arkansas where he grew" -> "Born and raised in Arkansas, Clinton grew"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Clear improvement, done. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
            • "Clinton grew to become" -> Clinton became.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
        • The larger University of Oxford is shorter than the specific University College, Oxford as another suggestion for trimming.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I think the specific alma mater is better here. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
            • I am trying not to push the lead because the fineries of politics is not my thing. However, it is far more common for people to say Oxford or University of Oxford than the specific college. The first other Rhodes Scholar I looked at (Bill Bradley) just has Oxford and that is a WP:GA already.
        • "In the aftermath of" could be shortened to Following or After.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I apologize for not noticing this earlier, but the magnitude of the surpluses is not presented here. The text should expound upon the summary in the LEAD. At the very least, I think the reader should know the magnitude of each surplus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
        • I agree. I'll need to find that information. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
        • With the number of times the word Clinton is in the 3rd paragraph, we could go with one more pronoun in the second sentence, changing Clinton to he.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Above, I have proposed a lot of verbiage changes to shorten the character count. Basically, I would like to close this with a LEAD under 2900 characters that includes both SCHIP and DADT, if possible. It is up to you to make decisions like whether the extra characters to describe the specific college are more valuable to the reader than adding these things. I really don't want to remove any substance from the lead to add these two things. We can go back and forth a bit and I will make more suggestions on things for you to consider shrinking. Maybe we can get both of them in. We are now working from 2859.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe that's possible. I'll work on that. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, I added info about DADT and SCHIP in the lede, and shortened a lot in ways you mentioned and a few I found on my own. That brings the lede to 2966 characters, including spaces. (I also added budget surplus data in the appropriate section.) – Quadell ^(talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't see those surplus numbers in the source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
        • They were in ref 48 (the PDF), not 47 (FactCheck). I have now switched the order of the refs to more accurately reflect where the information came from. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Should we mention later fuller gay integration?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, the lede's already pretty crowded... – Quadell ^(talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I meant in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I apologize for being really picky, but this is probably the highest importance GA I have reviewed. Looking at character count, I still hope to take it down to 2900. Pleas consider some of the following:
        • "member of the Democratic Party" -> Democrat
          • I prefer the longer wording here, if possible. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
        • SCHIP, providing health coverage for millions of children. -> State Children's Health Insurance Program, which is a rather self-explanatory name.
          • I don't mean to be contrarian, but I don't think it's self-explanatory that it actually provided insurance (rather than regulating).
        • Governor of the state of Arkansas-> either Governor of Arkansas or Arkansas Governor
          • Yes, and actually, the fact that he was Gov or Ark is mentioned later in the lede. No offense to Arkansas, but I'm not sure that belongs in the first (or 2nd) sentence. So I took out that part, and linked Governor of Arkansas later in the lede. (This change also makes it clearer what the "Inaugurated at 46" bit refers to.) – Quadell ^(talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
        • As Governor of Arkansas, Clinton overhauled the state's -> As Governor, Clinton overhauled Arkansas'--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Since this is now the first time the lede mentions him being governor of Arkansas, I figure the state should be in the first clause. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
        • P.S. confirm that I am not leading you astray with my summary of DADT. Do you think the sources view it the way I told you to summarize it. I basically view it as Clinton's Three-fifths compromise on gays since it was all the country was ready for at the time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Absolutely. I wasn't sure how to sum up some a complex issue in a sentence, but this works beautifully. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it time?

• I'm not sure I'm comfortable taking much more out of the lede. I'm twitching to be done with this one, one was or another, to be honest... – Quadell ^(talk) 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• I am satisfied with pretty much everything, especially the WP:LEAD. As he continues to do notable things we have room to keep the lead tight. Certainly in the future, we may want to change "member of the Democratic Party" -> Democrat or Democratic President; SCHIP, providing health coverage for millions of children. -> State Children's Health Insurance Program; that of President Barack Obama -> Barack Obama's and such.
• My only question is whether in the main body we should mention the later fuller gay integration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, in the body! Yes, I would say so. I'll try to incorporate that later today. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, I added a wrap-up sentence on DADT's repeal, with a cite. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Quadell, I commend you on your patience, dedication and excellence as an editor. Thank you for putting up with me and my attempt to review an article outside of my expertise. You are commended for stepping in for another editor for a second time (after jumping in previously at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/GA1). I thank you for taking the initiative to pay the proper attention to a high-importance biography in need of expert editorial attention. Taking this article from our starting point to the current version with an extensive effort is commendable. I am now passing this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Chelsea & Mr. President, after the 120,000 birthday responses following the Foundation's appeal that Chelsea voiced so eloquently, I hope my effort here does not get lost in the shuffle. On behalf of all of Wikipedia, we pledge to continue to "improve the lives of others" by making information available to the world. Thanks for asking me to be involved and giving me a chance to demonstrate how wikipedians as public servants can participate in this commitment. I tried to guide the improvement of this article without doing you any favors, sir because that would be a disservice to the world of people who need to be able to learn about you. I apologize that, like any encyclopedia, we are only able to summarize what public domain sources say. Thank you for you leadership and your own efforts to continue to "improve the lives of others" and again, belatedly, Happy Birthday!--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Military forces in Iraq

The following sentence appears in the article:

'To weaken Saddam Hussein's grip of power, Clinton signed H.R. 4655 into law on October 31, 1998, which instituted a policy of "regime change" against Iraq, though it explicitly stated it did not speak to the use of American military forces.'

This sentence is inaccurate. The text of H.R. 4655 does in fact speak to the use of American military forces, under Sec. 4(a)(2), which reads:

'(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations. '(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.139.251 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It might just be a typo, i.e. "did not speak to the use of American military force" rather than "forces". --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewritten to clarify. No direct intervention by US military forces. Assistance (articles, training), not troops on the ground. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bill Creating Jobs

Bill Clinton added 6 million jobs thats 250,000 a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.201.160 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispel nonsense on Vince Foster and other things

The Article should include an "Urban legend" or "Common misconception" Section. This new Section should mention, among other things, that Clinton did not murder Vince Foster, despite popular belief. (Vince Foster actually committed suicide if anyone's curious.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Impeachment: Nothing new or Serious Event??

The intro to this entry merely states that, "Later, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in a scandal involving a White House intern, but was acquitted by the U.S. Senate and served his complete term of office." Yet, don't you think the Impeachment of a President is a more serious event than this (especially since it has only been successfully pursued twice in the history of the United States?)

Impeachment is a serious event for any President: It has only been attempted three times, and was aborted only once (Nixon resigned rather than go through the ordeal.) Thus, the fact that this opening entry omits the fact that Bill Clinton is only the second out of 44 Presidents successfully impeached can be seen as an overt attempt by partisan supporters to both whitewash and minimize the importance of this event in American history.

You should at least mention the fact that Bill Clinton's Impeachment was only the second time in American History that such an event has taken place. IMHO Thanks122.26.58.230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

About the Impeachment proceedings

It was my understanding that Bill Clinton was impeached, just not removed from office. Not sure about the acquital by the US Senate. The sentance that was handed down was shunning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixion123 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"He has also expressed support for gay marriage" -- source?

The article source for the statement "He has also expressed support for gay marriage" is not specifically about Bill Clinton and does not give any quotes or information that would indicate the statement is true. 184.6.104.141 (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Already done It looks as if the statement has already been removed from the article. I could not find it anywhere. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Religion

The category and info box say he is Baptist. Are there any sources for this? The reason I ask is because he attended Catholic school and his wife's article states that she is United Methodist. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2012 to change the 2nd term

In the second term passage, it states that Clinton was the 2nd president impeached, after Andrew Johnson. This must be corrected since Richard Nixon was impeached in the 70s due to the Watergate scandal. This is common knowledge, and MUST be fixed.

Boisebound78 (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done. Read the Nixon article, it clearly indicates he resigned before he could be impeached. Hot Stop 15:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the budget deficit/surplus chart

If that chart is to be believed, we had 4 years of Ford budgets, followed by 3 years of Carter, 9 years of Reagan, 3 years of Bush Sr., and 9 years of Clinton. That's not right.William Jockusch (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the graph is showing positive values, i.e. the red bars, as deficits and negative values, the blue bars, as surpluses, so by that interpretation it shows all deficits apart from Clinton last four fiscal years, 1998-2001 inclusive. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but why do we have 9 years of Clinton and Reagan, instead of 8? Why 3 years of Carter and Bush Sr., instead of 4?William Jockusch (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless somebody fixes the chart, I think it should be removed as it is inaccurate. Comments?William Jockusch (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Much better, thanks!William Jockusch (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Public Image

I think the public image section on this page is almost exactly the same as the lower section on the page Public Image of Bill Clinton. I think we should make this section drastically smaller or add what the other page says to this article for that page is not that long. Jibajabba (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Importance of impeachment.

Seeing Tarc's violent reaction, I realize this probably won't be easy, but if Wikipedia truly wants to be an unbiased encyclopedia his impeachment needs to be in the opening paragraph. If the Nixon article opened with mention of his young age becoming VP but no mention of his resignation, it would be wrong.

The opening paragraph for Bill Clinton reports his young age (third youngest), him being the first baby-boomer president, but no mention of him being the second president impeached. No seriously unbiased editor can say that his impeachment should not be in the opening paragraph. Rodchen (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the first part of the lead, it is not a defining moment of an 8-year presidency. 3rd paragraph is enough. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any evidence of any "violent" reaction by Tarc. I don't agree with Tarc that it wasn't a defining moment, but as long as its in the lead, its fine. First paragraph is usually for identifying statistics of a president. Subsequent information can go into other paragraphs.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You can see the history to see the violent reaction. And Clinton being 46 and the third youngest man to become president was a defining moment??? Him being the first baby boomer president was a defining moment? Of course it should be included in the opening paragraph. If Nixon's opening paragraph discussed China, war in Vietnam and Russian relations but nothing of watergate or his resignation, wouldn't that seem strange to you???? Rodchen (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with where it is now, but if it is moved to the lead it would need a substantial rewrite for context. Hot Stop 14:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Apples and oranges regarding Watergate and Nixon, I think you need to chekc your bias at the door before furthering this conversation. For Clinton, the 'baby boomer' aspect is quite significant, yes, as it stood in stark contrast to most of the presidents of the 20th century who campaigned on their military service. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

One hundred years from now people will remember Clinton as being the second president who was impeached, just like most Andrew Johnson is basically remembered for only 2 things: succeeding Lincoln and his impeachment. I will try to rewrite the opening lead. I had wanted to avoid ruffling too many feathers, but if a rewrite is needed I will give it a try. Rodchen (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is fine just the way it is at present, with the impeachment bit further down but still in the lead. That way it isn't propped up with more importance than it actually is, not is it burying an important, though not defining, aspect of Clinton's presidency. Spare us your WP:CRYSTALBALL-gazing about presumed importance and find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Impeachment is a fairly major event in anyones life, especially of a president. Given that there have only been 2 of 43 is pretty substantial. Looking at Andrew Johnsons opening paragraph and Richard Nixons, its clear that they also mention the impeachment/resignation as well. If was added to the first paragraph, it wouldn't be without precedent.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)