Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive 1

message: The box on the right-hand side gives information about the Presidency of the United States. So shouldn't the image be one from his Presidency? Futhermore, the most important office or job he has ever had is that of POTUS. So this article should have an image of him from that time period. Kingturtle 04:43, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the presidential image is more analogous with the images of other presidents. Evil saltine 04:48, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: FYI, the image is from his later years as President, not the first year like the old image.
But the first one is an offical portrait. The older one is just him on the street. --Jiang 07:18, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the newer image of Clinton with the WH one. The older one seem to stick out like a sore thumb and looked rather ugly. -- iHoshie 09:18, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: This was just undone in the article:
:It is now becoming apparent, following the attacks on September 11th, 2001 that Bill Clinton could have pursued a more aggressive policy toward terrorist groups attacking American interests here in the United States and abroad. He even refused an offer to have Osama Bin Laden handed over to U.S. authorities twice during the '90s. Also, his policies that resulted in the reduction of our intelligence agencies hurt the U.S. abilities to uncover terrorist attacks before they occur. These policies were reversed with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a cabinet level position, by President George W. Bush.
Any way that some NPOV part of this can be included.  My understanding was that Clinton got an least one opportunity to destroy or capture Bin Laden and decided not to take the action. - Texture 22:47, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama Bin Laden 

message: === I like this one because:===
# Because it is smaller in actual size and file size, it is lighter and easier to see detail, and just looks better than the big, dark, ugly picture.  I don't see what the big deal is.  This is just a continued vendetta towards me, thats it.  User:ChrisDJackson
## (Anonymous flame I had left removed. Sorry about that. I still disagree with you calling it a "vendetta" but I'll try to be more polite in the future. PenguiN42 17:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Bill Clinton.jpg 

message: # Because it is smaller in actual size and file size, it is lighter and easier to see detail, and just looks better than the big, dark, ugly picture.  I don't see what the big deal is.  This is just a continued vendetta towards me, thats it.  User:ChrisDJackson
## (Anonymous flame I had left removed. Sorry about that. I still disagree with you calling it a "vendetta" but I'll try to be more polite in the future. PenguiN42 17:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like this one because:

message: # Because the color is flushed out. It looks like a mistake. It is weaker in color and detail than the other version. This is nothing against ChrisD personally. The other JPG of the same portrait is better. Kingturtle 23:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't like this one because:

message: === I like this one because:===
#The colors are deeper, which provides more contrast. Kingturtle 23:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Bill-Clinton.jpg 

message: #The colors are deeper, which provides more contrast. Kingturtle 23:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like this one because:

message: === I like this one because:===
# It is an official portrait that as far as I know has not yet been involved in an revertion conflict on Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 23:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:BillClinton1999.jpg 

message: # It is an official portrait that as far as I know has not yet been involved in an revertion conflict on Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 23:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like this one because:

message: ===I don't like this one because:===
#The cameraman didnt center his frame. --Jiang
*It might just be poorly cropped. Kingturtle 00:24, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do we go about getting it unprotected?  It's been months now. Mdchachi 16:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: unprotected. rm the notice on your next edit. --Jiang 22:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: How about this?--because the cell is labeled as "First Lady" and not as "First Lady's Maiden Name". As the First Lady, she was known as "Hillary Rodham Clinton " not as "Hillary Diane Rodham". older≠wiser 15:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Heh--the only reason they appear on the other presidents is because you have been waging a campaign to change them all. Rather disingenuous. older≠wiser 15:34, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Ok, I may have been a bit presumptuous, although there does appear to be some disagreement about what form of the First Lady's name should go in the box. I have no strong opinion about the table, though I think there's a lot of redundant clutter with the table on the side and two msgs at the bottom. older≠wiser 16:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Bill_Clinton_2000.jpg 

message: #The cameraman didnt center his frame. --Jiang
*It might just be poorly cropped. Kingturtle 00:24, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't like this one because:

message: I don't think it's correct to refer, as this article does, to Bill Clinton having grown up in "poverty."  That's a pretty specific term, and I've never read anything to indicate that Bill Clinton grew up in poverty.  Lower-middle-class, sure.  But poverty?  No.  I'd like to change that reference when this page is unprotected.  Moncrief 02:18, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
:So how do we go about getting it unprotected?  It's been months now. Mdchachi 16:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: unprotected. rm the notice on your next edit. --Jiang 22:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poverty?

message: I don't see any reason why the presidents table should be removed and not taken into consideration the display Hillary Clinton's full maiden name before she married Bill Clinton. Why undo my changes? --65.73.0.137
:How about this?--because the cell is labeled as "First Lady" and not as "First Lady's Maiden Name". As the First Lady, she was known as "Hillary Rodham Clinton " not as "Hillary Diane Rodham". older≠wiser 15:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh--the only reason they appear on the other presidents is because you have been waging a campaign to change them all. Rather disingenuous. older≠wiser 15:34, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Ok, I may have been a bit presumptuous, although there does appear to be some disagreement about what form of the First Lady's name should go in the box. I have no strong opinion about the table, though I think there's a lot of redundant clutter with the table on the side and two msgs at the bottom. older≠wiser 16:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First Lady's Maiden Name and Presidents table

message: I have moved this back to Bill Clinton, in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming convention, which states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) for more. Meelar 15:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Move

message: Jiang, can you explain why you keep reverting to laywer? Is it wrong to say "attorney" and "gov of Arkansas"? Paranoid 20:48, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Job titles are not the same as professions. Visit attorney and tell me what's wrong with that link. It's customary not to include political titles - World Book doesn't do this. --Jiang 04:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Profession

message: The caption doesn't seem very NPOV to me. Could this be changed?
:This is backed by opinion polls of the era. I don't see how it's POV, but it might be irrelevant for this photo. Youger people usually refers to younger people of voting age. --Jiang 03:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the NPOV concern is because of the phrase "scandal ridden". Why mention scandal at all in this caption? If we do want some kind of contrast between his popularity and the scandals, a more NPOV caption might mention "investigations" and/or "impeachment proceedings" instead. - dcljr 02:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The phrase "scandal ridden' does not belong in the caption. Having it there is highly POV.  I'm removing it.  Bill 16:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of young kid reading with Clinton 

message: I'd like to add an entry to this effect:
* August 17, 1998 - Clinton testifies before a grand jury about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In the evening, he delivers a nationally televised address in which he describes his relationship with Lewinsky as "not appropriate" but also "nobody's business".
I hope this is not seen as NPOV (no Clinton basher, I) -- I just think that day was one of the most bizarre and critical days of his presidency (with respect to how he has been judged since). Comments? Criticisms? - dcljr 03:12, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why didn't you (User:208.20.195.222) include the whole thing? And why did you add clearly non-NPOV material in the economic section? - dcljr 03:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline entries 

message: I removed the following paragraphs:
:Despite the dramatic increase in personal wealth amongst many Americans during this period, economists and analysts in the private sector, government, military, and even the Federal Reserve Bank predicted that policies enacted or supported by President Clinton were in fact damaging the country's long term economic health.  Some of these fears did in fact become reality - particularly, the United States military has been forced to implement an unprecedented recall program for military retirees to address troop shortages in the nation's continuing War on Terror.  During President Clinton's years in office, the strength of the nation's military was severely weakened due to dramatic spending cuts.  It is also believed that these budget cuts led to breakdowns in the nation's intelligence capability, eventually leading to failures that did not predict the WTC attacks on 9/11/01.  
:Additionally, much of the strength of the economy for which President Clinton was credited resulted from the growth of the "dot-com bubble", and not the economic policies that President Clinton favored.  When the irrational exuberance of the stock market, as termed by Federal Reserve Board chief Alan Greenspan, finally reached its maximum in the late 1990s, a much more accurate state of the impact of Clinton's economy was evidenced.  The resulting economic downturn was, broadly and without specifics, blamed on President Clinton's successor to the Oval Office.  Due to the fact that President Clinton's successor, George W. Bush, had not been in office long enough to see his economic policies affect the nation's economy, many conservatives attributed the popular view of recent history to an American liberal media bias.
What specific policies of Clinton did the Federal Reserve predict to damage the economy? The reduction in military was IIRC largely bipartisan. Who believes these budget cuts led to breakdowns in the nation's intelligene capability? In the 2nd paragraph, we move into damned if you do and damned if you don't territory. It reads like Clinton wasn't actually responsible for the economy, but he is still blamed for it anyhow. I agree that Bush was sometimes unfairly blamed for the downturn, but I'm not sure what exactly that has to do with Clinton. older≠wiser 03:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote: Please try to act professionally toward those with whom you do not agree - provide a suggestion for modification that you feel is mutually agreeable rather than performing wholesale removal of a contribution. Huh? Simply because I removed a section of text that is full of unsubstanitated vagaries, I am also responsible for editing it? No, I don't think so. However, I am mildly offended that you consider it to be somehow "unprofessional" (whatever that might mean). That said, what I object to is not that something critical was said about ole Billy Boy, but that it was full of vague allegations. When you say "policies enacted or supported by President Clinton were in fact damaging the country's long term economic health", which policies? leaving it unspecified implies that it may be any or all of his policies.  When you claim there are in fact quite a few people and numerous (dozens?  hundreds?) of pundits/experts who attribute the meltdown of our military and our intelligence arsenals to events that occurred by Clinton's hand, there are in fact quite a few people and numerous (dozens?  hundreds?) of pundits/experts who attribute any number of bad things to Clinton and his policies, some perhaps justified and many not--so what? That's what pundits do, offer opinions according to their biases. older≠wiser 17:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you win.  Herein lies the fundamental issue with "Open" technologies - the content/benefit becomes weighted by whomever is loudest.  The fact is that the entire article could be construed as being full of "unsubstantiated vaguaries" - to wit, sentence #2:  "During his administration, the United States enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history".  Where is this substantiated?  The problem is that I don't care enough about this guy, or the accuracy of the document, to argue with zealots such as yourself in cyberspace.  Ultimately, people will believe what they want to believe, regardless as to what is written.  However, the NPOV guidelines state that rather than removing a contribution, it should basically be couunterweigted by an opposite view - this is what I did, and you've plainly and blatantly acted contrary to those guidelines.  I have better things to do.  Maybe someone else will realize that you are not neutral enough to contribute and take appropriate action - a simple review of your user page reveals all, you in fact hold President Bush responsible for the state of the economy and your joblessness (or did at one time), hardly a neutral sentiment.  I think if neutral individuals with as little tolerance for nonsense as I had visited this article before, this conversation would already have taken place.   - TRM  17:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The pot calls the kettle black. Sure, I think Bush is a bonehead and that in general, Clinton was a far better president, even with his personal failings which were made into a public spectacle by right-wing zealots. I try not to hide my biases--NPOV applies to articles, not to user pages, and arguably not to the discussion pages. Once again, I removed the text not because it was biased (althoug it was that also), but because it was too vague for me to even know where to begin with editing it into something more acceptable. If what you wrote was so vague that I didn't know what you meant (aside from casting Clinton in a negative light), how am I supposed to know how to edit. And I will note, that I did not simple delete the text, I moved it to the discussion page, where it could be, well, um, discussed. If you think this is improper, well, so it goes...we have a different interpretation of the NPOV editing policy--if you think I have abused the policy, then you're free to pursue the matter. If you think the rest of the Clinton article is biased, you are welcome to edit it. I actually agree with you that it is probably a bit too rosy right now, but like you, I don't feel any particluar inclination to chase down details and edit it at this point. older≠wiser 18:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Term Impact of Clinton's Policies 

message: I object to this section as POV. It gets the last word in the article.  And it is solely intended to highlight scandals -- who says these are the "most" famous?  Consider, for example, if the GW Bush article ended with:
*Make the pie higher
*major league asshole
*now watch this drive
Or Reagan with:
*We begin bombing [Russia] in five minutes
*I did not trade arms for hostages
*Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.
Cutting as promoting POV.
IT IS NOT POV!
Ask anyone, Democrat or Republican, what are the three most famous quotes. This is what you will get.
I am a Democrat (large D) and I am a Clinton supporter. If you can come up with any quote, recognizable by any non-wonk, then substute them - but by replacement one at a time - not removal - I think these quotes demonstrate the humanity (and flaws) of this truely great president  Leonard G. 03:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your political affiliation does not make you immune from POV edits.  It may not be your point of view that Clinton is a scoundrel.  But, that is the message of putting these selected quotes as the very last word of the article.  That, by the way, is why I was careful to revert my phrasing 'intended to promote POV'.  Each of the scandals is discussed in the text.  Taking them out of context, calling them most famous, and making them the last word unduly emphasizes these already discussed scandals and quotes.  Can you imagine the firestorm if someone tried to insert the analogous lists I created above as the last word? Wolfman 05:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Most famous quotes

message: It seems to me that most of the information here should go on some other page (such as Ramzi Yousef's page). Several of the points seem not to have a direct relationship to Clinton. Acsenray 13:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ramzi Yousef/Operation Bojinka

message: I think there should be a separate section or at least a link to his military endeavors as President. And how these especially fit in with his relationship with the UN. Sub-chapters or links could include "Attack on pharmaceutical plant in Sudan" , "Attack on Saudi Arabia", "Attack on Yugoslavia", etc. Numbers of civilian deaths for each attack would underscore the meaningfulness of each military adventure.
In the realm of his successful economic policies, mention of the the Wall Street Bubble Burst during the last year of his term as President and the resulting loss in value of pensions for working class Americans is pretty important. (Many people had also invested their savings during the period of economic optimism during Clinton's Presidency.) Also, the corruption in firms such as Enron during his Presidency, came to light only afterwards.
:major military operations should be briefly mentioned somewhere with links to the relevant wikipedia article.  what does enron have to do with clinton? some crimes happened there during his tenure, but so did the OJ Simpson incident. not everything that happens during a presidency is about the president. Wolfman 14:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: you are factually mistaken about growth being a fiction.  according to the BLS household incomes increased every year of Clinton's presidency. that's money directly in people's pockets. Wolfman 19:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Some excluded major accomplishments

message: in this edit some anon ip cut the reference to the strike on terrorist facilities in Sudan.  reason given was that it was actually a civilian factory.  i remember at the time there was some dispute about this.  does anybody know what the truth was (with documentation)?  and regardless, if the sudan strike was the motivation as was stated, should not some appropriate reference still be included (with a wikilink to any article about the operation)?  Wolfman 14:47, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  sudan strike 

message: I added a few lines on Tom Harkin's statements about the trial of Clinton being a piece of dung.  And Harkin did actually say that during an impromptu interview at the capital.  So not all the Senators were the impartial jurors that they had sworn to be - and that extends to both sides of the floor.
I removed the following sentence from the Presidency section because it doesn't make sense to me. If anyone knows what it means, please feel free to re-add it. "However, the only evidence found was Bill Clinton formerly dating two current La Presidente de Argentina." DJ Clayworth 17:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Impeachment Trial Impartiality