Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive 5

message: Can someone please explain to me why it says that Clinton achieved a budget surplus, when the following table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt) shows a costant increase in the Public Debt? Which of these is wrong? It can't be the second one, because it's the data taken from the U.S. Bureau of the Public Debt.
–– This actually isn't inconsistent.  A "budget surplus" is when there is money left in the federal budget after allocating funds.  The debt is the amount of money that has been borrowed, by way of treasury bonds, for example, over time.  Both can co-exist, as odd as that may sound.  In addition, the debt would continue to climb even if there is a surplus because of interest that must be paid. Mborrelli 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget surplus?

message: I personally like the ToC's new position.  I am not sure if this is within Wikipedia's official policy, but I would be interested to know.  I feel that it makes the page more accessable and professional.-PhattyFatt 14:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ToC

message: It is perfectly legal to report any facts from any source, including Infotrac. Facts can never be copyrighted --although the specific text that discusses the facts can be copyrighted, so Wiki editors should rephrase the facts in their own words. Be sure to include the proper footnote. Rjensen 12:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as poll data goes, I just added a comment to the article saying that such data takes up too much space. What he did and what people think of it are very different things to me. Another way of phrasing the copyright relates to finding the original source, especially if you can find another copy. 216.234.170.66 12:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality of this source 

message: There is no reason not to bring W's and Clinton's pages closer to similarity.  I understand that Wikipedia is liberal dominated, but calling an entire section 'right wing conspiracies' or some variation is taking it a bit far.  Objectively speaking, there are many, many more conspiracies surrounding Bush, and none of them are dismissed outright on his page.  I think Clinton was dodgy, and most people would agree, and even as a Conservative Christian, I'd say the same about W.  But the pages should match, and not be so blatantly opinionated.  I see from lack of discussion you've discredited yourself enough that Conservatives have given up.  The classic open source solution.
My other suggestion is just to break the pardons paragraph off on it's own, maybe include a statement about his staff vandalizing the White House, and call it 'Last Day' or something.
68.81.77.76 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Objectively speaking, there was never any evidence produced that the alleged vandalism of the White House took place. In fact, the whole "scandal" was made up . Weirdkid 03:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like president Bush or Bill Clinton very much. However, the facts are the facts, and cannot be changed. I have been trying to get some negative facts on this page to contrast the rest of the article, which I feel is pro-Clinton. In my mind, and based upon all the facts that I have, the success or failure of Clinton as president revolves around economy vs. national security. The first he succeded (or at very worst, got lucky on, but I think he did well here), the second was a disasterous failure involving massive military cuts and a failure to kill Osama bin Laden even when he was exactly located. Wikipedia should report all the facts, positive or negative, and let the reader draw his conclusion. As for the military, the only real mention of it is the gays in the military issue (which pales in comparison with the 800,000 or so troops cut by Clinton as a matter of importance), and a reference to him deploying the military "hesitantly."Loco en el coco 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Comparison 

message: This sentence: "suffering 18 casualties (19 according to the film Black Hawk Down) and 73 wounded in the battle." seems incorrect, as wounding also counts as a casualty.  Should we not say, "18 deaths" and "73 wounded"? 68.174.93.94 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somalia 

message: By all means show both sides of the impeachment and controversies as long as the statements have reputable sources. Durova 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a separate article for the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy charge.  Since it is better developed than the paragraph here, it would probably be a good idea to cut down the paragraph here to a couple sentences and a link to the other article. - Maximusveritas 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment The only problem I have with the "vast right wing conspiracy" section is the following statement: "Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr's investigation covering an ever widening sphere of topics could well have ground to a halt without the support of public opinion buoyed by the these conservative efforts against Clinton."  Is this the speculation of the author, or an opinion by someone in a position to make such a statement?  If it is the latter, it should be reworded for clairity.  If it is the former, it should be removed.  Come to think of it, as a speculative statement, it should be removed regardless of who said it.--Bayyoc 20:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: In this merge, , I left out the bit about Starr because that was already addressed earlier in the article. I did include the info about Pardongate. I tried to find information about the resolution of the investigation, but as far as I can tell it is still dragging on. Info in this link  suggests that the Bush administration is not interested in pursuing it. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last merge

message: I noticed that Clinton is included in the cat "Multiracial Americans". I'm just curious as to where this comes from. I haven't heard of him having anything other than European roots, and at least according to current American understanding, people who are entirely of European descent are not considered "Multiracial". I'm mentioning it instead of being bold and changing it because it's a prominent article and I could be mistaken. Makemi 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The category addition was probably an act of vandalism.  I noticed it yesterday, but I haven't bothered to look it up. Frankly, if he was multi-racial, I think it would have come up during one of the campaigns.  Rklawton 03:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe it has something to do with Toni Morrison's honourary induction. 216.234.170.66 12:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Does anyone have any corroboration for the Pakistan Daily Times quote? It seems unlikely that if Clinton had "urged countries to convict the publishers", some other media would have picked that up; it's not like he travels in a vacuum, and it's not like he's unaware of the constitutional protections on free speech enjoyed in most of the Western world, in particular Denmark and France. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking for that myself for the past 30 minutes and can't find anything. I think BBC Worldwide Monitoring might have it, but it seems to be a paid service and I don't have it. Mithridates 14:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pulled it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I found the source; it's here. Looks like they made a mistake when Clinton used the word 'conviction' - he was referring to religious convictions. Mithridates 11:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan Daily Times quote 

message: "During his tenure as president, his domestic priorities included a failed effort to create a universal healthcare system (led by his wife), restrict handgun sales, strengthen environmental regulations, and protect the jobs of workers during pregnancy or medical emergency."
It sounds like everything mentioned in this sentence is "a failed effort." On top of that, why list the failed effort to create a universal healthcare system first? I certainly don't think it was his most prominent domestic priority.
Smedley Hirkum 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  That paragraph was actually changed on February 4th as part of a flawed POV edit by an anon, but wasn't caught until now.  The original paragraph still started with healthcare and that's probably right since I do think it was a major part of his agenda (in the first term at least).  I'll restore the original for now - Maximusveritas 00:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with first paragraph 

message: Is there any source for this? Frankly, I always thought this gesture originated with Bob Dole, who used it partially out of necessity, but to great effect. Makemi 16:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Impeachment doesn't require being removed from office.
It means discredited. 216.234.170.66 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinton thumb

message: Until reading this article, I was unaware that Clinton's second term started a full two years before his election.  Any reason not to merge the pre-election events under "Significant Events of the Second Term" to the first term? ColumbiaKid 07:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't notice that, and I just made all the dates ISO,
so maybe the problem's been fixed, and if it isn't, then maybe that'll help. 216.234.170.66 12:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Term

message: No mention is made of Clinton being a father. 68.46.148.238 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire. "Their only child, Chelsea, was born in 1980." Fsotrain09 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daughter 

message: Alright, i pulled out a few of my Clinton books, and cleaned up that section slightly. I have more work to do on the actual impeachment paragraph as well. 
I fleshed out why Willey and Broaderick's charges went nowhere - how Willey was caught lying numerous times to Starr and how Broaderick first stated under oath that Clinton had never made an unwelcome advance. 
Roger Clinton was NOT serving a prison sentence when he was pardoned - that's a flat out lie. 
With the Marc Rich paragragh, as with the Willey/Broaderick subject, the allegations were listed but there was no discussion as to why there were no further charges. I explained a bit more as to why the prosecutors did not file charges against Clinton as it related to Rich - namely, that Denise Rich had given her last donation a year before emails revealed that her attorney's even discussed asking her to lobby Clinton, and included that Dan Burton dropped his investigation after listening to taped conversations of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak lobbying passionately on Rich's behalf for a pardon. 
I'm going to spend some time over the next few weeks getting this section straightened out - there is a lot of mythology referenced without a lot of substance to clear things up. If we're going to have sections about scandals, then it must be dense and sourced as to the resolution and the reasons for the resolution. Simply saying that "no charges were filed" after listing directly what the accusation is, is unfair to a person who was never charged. If we know why no charges were filed, it's fair to both parties to list succintly what those reasons are. 
Your obedient servant,
Smokingmaenad 07:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marc Rich, Broadrick, Willey and Roger 

message: Is there really a growing friendship with W or should that read HW?
:It should be HW.  Thanks for catching it.  I went ahead and changed it - Maximusveritas 17:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A picture is worth a hundred lies. 216.234.170.66 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Friendship of Clinton and Bush

message: I don't know what Clinton's ancestral origins are but the categories to which this article belongs seems to be continually growing.  Someone knowlegable needs to keep an eye on this and editors need to make sure they're citing sources.  And what the hell did one editor mean when he removed the "Irish American" category and wrote "Irish American = Catholic?"  WTF?  --ElKevbo 01:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been my understanding as an Irish Catholic American that most "Irish Protestants" are really Scots-Irish. In any case, the best course of action is pulling out a copy of My Life and finding out what he considers himself to be. Fsotrain09 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I pulled out my copy and I'm not sure what he considers himself, but he does refer to Irish Americans in the third person as though they were a group to which he did not belong. - Maximusveritas 03:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Irish American" especially in politics is used to refer to members of the Irish Catholic community. That was not Bill (he has always been a southern baptist).  Ethnicity and religion overlap in complex ways in the US. Rjensen 03:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My Protestant grandparents would be quite miffed to know they're not considered Irish. Derex 06:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestral origins

message: Has anyone noticed the percentage of changes to this article that are either a)vandalism, b)POV attacks and c)cleanup of a and b? Perhaps it is now time to protect this page in the way George W. Bush is protected? Kukini 20:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article doesn't get quite the traffic Bush's does (it's the most edited page on Wikipedia) and I know many people including me watch the page to revert vandalism. Wikipedia aims to keep all articles open to editing unless it really is impossible to manage, and I don't think that's the stage we're at here. Harro5 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the response. Best, Kukini 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not protect this article? 

message: In all the president books I look in, it says he was a Rhodes scholar. What's a Rhodes scholar? Coby2 03:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A student who wins a scholarship (as an undergraduate) to study at Oxford.  The scholarship was endowed by Cecil Rhodes, hence the name.  -Fsotrain09 04:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhodes Scholar 

message: In looking up References for style and content for other pages, I came across this sentence. 
"Clinton deployed the U.S. military hesitantly several times under hostile circumstances" this seems to be a PPOV. Shouldn't it read something like 'Clinton deployed the U.S. military several times under his Presidency.' I could easily give argument against the Original statement on the page! Maybe give reference to police style deployment, Air Force strikes, And not large scale campaign to clarify.
: This Page is well done! So much Wiki it boggles my mind--MadDogCrog 11:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  so I made this minor change to be NPOV--MadDogCrog 06:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign policy 

message: Was his trip to VN ever discussed on this page?
It's noteworthy and encyclopedic.
Thanks! --M a s 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: (massive snip)
::::Please don't describe original research into sexual misconduct here. WP:NOR
 216.234.170.66 13:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anal-Oral Contact 

message: There is a trivia point that states that he had the highest approval rating since Reagan.  I recall George H. W. Bush having an 89% approval rating around the Gulf War which was the highest until his son's 90% rating after 9/11.  (Anonymous User) May 29, 2006
:Yeah, good catch.  I looked it up and it's not that he had the highest approval since Reagan, but that he had a higher approval than Reagan ever had.  I don't think that's notable, so I'll just remove the sentence altogether. Maximusveritas 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And even if it had been true, is it really noteworthy that Clinton had the highest approval rating since Reagan?There was only one (one-term) president between them. That's like saying "Kill Bill vol 2" is the best Tarantino movie since "Kill Bill vol. 1"  Now, GWB having the lowest rating since whoever.... that might be more trivia-worthy.Dubc0724 17:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GWB having the lowest approval rating since CNN did it's last poll...10 minutes ago. Haizum 20:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia Point

message: Overall, this article is very good.  It looks like a candidate for a featured article. John 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think so, then put this at the top and follow all three links, plus the instructions. 216.234.170.66 13:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very well written, extensive 

message: Clinton was recently intervied by Frontline on his policy on AIDS. If anyone here is interested in adding some info from this interview on this article you can see the interview here.--Jersey Devil 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Frontline Interview "Age of AIDS"

message: By consensus, here on talk, several sub-articles were spun off about 1.5 years ago.  The reason was that the "controversies" section was quite long and detailed relative to the rest of the article, which is inconsistent with the undue weight provision of the NPOV policy.  The idea was not that the controversies should be censored.  Rather, a full article allowed them to be explored in even greater depth for the interested reader.  And, a summary here informed the typical reader about the issue, while wiki-linking to the full article.  However, repeatedly, great detail ends up being added here for the controversies, sometimes to the extent that the treatment here is longer than the full article.  This is human nature, and it's going to keep happening unless we draw the line on it.  
Every so often, I have shortened some of the treatments here, consistent with the rationale for the sub-articles.  I intended to reduce the "pardons" criticism to a couple sentences today, with a link to the sub-article.  To put that in perspective, it's as long as "Investigation and impeachment" — and I surely no sane person would find them in any way comparable in gravity.  One is a standard exercise of Constitutional authority, though criticized by some; the other is an effort to remove the president from office for the first time in history. However, I've decided to get a consensus here first.  I think we should either merge and re-direct the various sub-articles on the controversies back here.  Or, we should actually make it policy to use them, holding the coverage here to a reasonable summary that describes the basic issue briefly.  Maybe consensus has changed on the sub-article idea, but I personally think that excessively detailed coverage here runs afoul of the undue weight provision. Derex 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-articles 

message: An AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against United States presidents seems to be converging on a merge decision.  That would involve moving the information into this article.  69.181.124.51 05:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The best kind of concensus is unanimity.
Those three votes in the beginning carry a lot of weight. 216.234.170.66 14:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Edits by Handface indicate that Ann Coulter asserts that Clinton is homosexual. This section is beyond absurd and I do not anticipate an edit war need ensure over it. But if you insist:
# Sourcing the statement in the edit summary is insufficient. Please follow the citation style used in the rest of the article.
# You have missed the point -- "criticism tends to be inflammatory" is not the issue. The issue is that filing "Clinton may be homosexual" under "criticism" is inflammatory -- i.e., the edit is inflammatory. At the least you need to find a different location in the article for this claim.
# Ann Coulter is not an authority on Clinton. This specific criticism is useless in this article. It belongs in the Coulter article.
# A statement by one individual is grossly incogruous with the other miscellaneous criticisms in this section. Please justify that this is a notable criticism of Clinton.
# A statement on a topic by Coulter does not warrant its inclusion in the article on that topic. Coulter makes many statements every day. These are more usefully grouped into the article on Coulter.
Thanks. -- Ptkfgs 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to do any of that.  You just don't get it.  I've never said Ann Coulter's comments were accurate.  I only said that Ann Coulter said them.  And for better or worse, Coulter is an important albeit annoying voice in politics.  Handface 04:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not disputing whether she said them. I dispute that they are relevant to this article in any way. If I had a problem with their inclusion whatsoever, we'd be discussing this at Talk:Ann Coulter. Why are these claims sufficiently notable for inclusion in an article on Bill Clinton? Again: why are these claims sufficiently notable for inclusion in an article on Bill Clinton? --Ptkfgs 04:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Coulter has her own article and her opinions are best expressed there. Rjensen 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- these edits say something verifiable about Coulter, but very little about Clinton. That's why I have no dispute with them being included in Ann Coulter. As for being an important voice in politics — Coulter surely has a good grasp of contemporary American conservative positions, but even an important voice for those positions does not indicate sufficient authority to present claims about the personal life of a former president. Even a psychologist specializing in sexual behavior would not be in a position to make those claims given the amount and nature of Coulter's contact with Clinton. If her claims were of a policy-oriented nature it would be different, but as written I cannot see how the edit is anything but off-topic. --Ptkfgs 06:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulter "criticism" 

message: The foreign policy section looks like it has been written by Newt Gingrich. It is filled with bias, including the accusation that Clinton violated international law and the claim that documents relating to Rwanda "undermined Clinton's earlier defence of ignorance causing many to once again attack his lack of honesty." Those are just two examples but no matter where you look, the section is blantantly bias. I will try to sift through this mess a rewrite a section on foreign policy worthy of an encyclopedia. I will appreciate any help. Again, all you need to do is read the section to see the problem. Mtmdem 05:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a stab at some small rewordings.  I've added a bunch of request for citations.  Some of the statements there are somewhat controversial or just should be cited so the user can read more - since it requires some interpretation of events and such.--FNV 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All done - I added sources for the facts you requested. Mtmdem 16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV-Foreign Policy

message: It seems every other president from Eisenhower forward has some military experience listed.149.55.30.100 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV-Military Experience

message: I've noticed quite a few recent changes to the infobox entry for Clinton's party affiliation. For what it's worth, any of the following variations will produce exactly the same output in the infobox (currently, an icon of the party logo and the word "Democrat" linked to United States Democratic party):
:Democratic
:Democratic Party
:Democrat
:Democrat
:Democratic
:Democrat
I don't personally see much difference between printing "Democrat" or "Democratic", but either way, the place to discuss altering this should probably be Template_talk:Infobox_President (the discussion page of the template that generates the infobox). —ptk⁂fgs 08:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it relates to the discussion about republican usage of the term "Democrat Party" - the idea being that "Democrat" has less positive connotation than "Democratic" - unfortunately, it's kind of a mess:  Harry Truman, Al Gore and LBJ are "Democratic" whereas FDR, JFK and Clinton here are "Democrat" - in terms of english grammar, it seems to me it should be "Political Party: Democratic" since that's the name of the party.  Assuming good faith, I can see why one might just say "Democrat" since these people are "Democrats" but their party is, properly "The Democratic Party"--FNV 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "party" field in infobox 

message: The 90's Economic Expansion began in March 1991 after a brief mild six month recession, almost two years before Clinton took office.
Clinton remained popular with the public throughout his two terms as President, ending his presidential career with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-term approval rating of any President in the post-Eisenhower era.
Is the "post-Eisenhower era" really considered a significant period of time?  I understand the point of the sentence -- to show that Clinton was more popular than many recent presidents.  But it reads as if the editor is reaching, trying to make Clinton sound as good as possible.  Couldn't it just be reworded to say "best approval rating since Eisenhower in 1960 (or '61 when JFK took office I guess would be more accurate?) Dubc0724 19:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I've never heard heard of the "post Eisenhower era". I guess it should be post FDR era, but I don't know if Clinton's approval rating were as high as FDRs. Someone should look into this.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After removing this article and its mirrors from the results, "post eisenhower era" only gets 46 hits on google. Seems like it's not really in wide use. I'll rephrase it. —ptk✰fgs 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I think the original point is still in tact; it just sounds better now. Dubc0724 13:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Eisenhower Era? 

message: Executive orders should not be listed in the "Major legislation signed" section. Executive orders are not legislation, and even if they have the force of law (which is uncertain), the rest of that list is legislation delivered by Congress. It is incongruous to list an executive order here. —ptk✰fgs 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Executive orders 

message: "Harris 367-60, 397" is cited as a source for "The vote to impeach was essentially along party lines in the Republican-led House of Representatives, where Speaker Newt Gingrich and Whip Tom DeLay exercised very tight party discipline." Any clue what Harris refers to? TransUtopian 23:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  second ref refers to what? 

message: Whats planed for his 60 birthday? --Stone 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bithday

message: I would like a Clinton in Fiction section; there are lots of nice examples, like the film "Primary Colors" as a striking one and many others. Any objections? MarkThomas 13:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea. No objections here. --Db099221 03:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton in Fiction 

message: Does anybody have a copy of this speech? I'm really desperate! Thanks! --CityGuy88 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bit of it here. 1 It's Rothermere by the way not Rothemere which may help you in Googling. The Clinton presidential library may have all his speeches online, not sure but worth a try. 
MarkThomas 23:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton's speech to the Rothemere Institute for American Studies at Oxford University on the 25th May 2001 

message: The bottom of the page lists Clinton as an Irish-American politician, and he's included in that page on wikipedia, but I don't see it mentioned in the article.  Mother was Irish or father?
:Please look in the archives, this issue has been previously discussed. -Fsotrain09 00:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish-American? I don't see it mentioned 

message: Hopefully that'll go over well.
Any thoughts?
--RobbieFal 03:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My 22:07 edit 

message: Reading through the stats on President Clinton's economic record I found several things that I wondered about.  Maybe someone can address these if needed.
Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector.   Wouldn't one need to factor in 8 years of population growth here?
Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars). We'd need to discount inflation/standard of living for this to be meaningful, wouldn't we?
The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.  Well I'm sure it is.  But that's like people saying Bush got more votes than any other president in history, while ignoring population growth. How does 2000 compare to other historical surpluses if discounted for inflation?
Also none of these stats are specifically sourced - I'm assuming that the references section at the bottom covers them.  If not, we need to get sources for all this stuff.  Dubc0724 17:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been a few days.  If it can't be verified, should I just delete it until it can be? Dubc0724 13:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I find it important to source these numbers, as I'm skeptical, I think deleting them would be too bold untill we get a response as for their source. --A Sunshade Lust 01:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that deleting is an undesirable move. Thanks for your input.Dubc0724 15:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Growth & Prosperity 

message: This article used to mention something about Clinton's health but doesn't anymore. Why not? Jack Daw 20:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health? 

message: I would like to add:
While many pundits pondered the effect of his impeachment on his legacy, Clinton viewed his impeachment battle as a "badge of honor."
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/60minutes/main620619.shtml)
Phredd 20:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton Impeachment - His View 

message: I am going to start peeling things off and maybe source some of it myself. Wow, this article has to be one of the worst major articles on wikipedia.Jasper23 00:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the non-science articles are in pretty poor shape.  Remove and source away!  Best of luck!  --ElKevbo 00:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, lets hope that I dont piss too many people off. Jasper23 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See if we can get sources for all the economic growth claims. I'll help when I can... Dubc0724 17:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half of the article is unsourced 

message: :These facts should be merged into the article body
*Following the death of Pope John Paul II on 2005-04-02 Clinton stirred up a mini-controversy saying the late pontiff, "may have had a mixed legacy…there will be debates about him. But on balance, he was a man of God, he was a consistent person, he did what he thought was right." Clinton sat with both President George W. Bush and former President George H.W. Bush as the first current or former American heads of state to attend a papal funeral.
*On 2006-05-13, Clinton was the commencement speaker along with George H. W. Bush at Tulane University in New Orleans. They both received honorary Doctorates of Laws from Tulane University. Clinton spoke to the students, faculty and alumni of Tulane and of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina that Tulane students know firsthand.
*Clinton is an amateur saxophonist (other recent musical presidents include pianists Harry Truman and Richard Nixon).
*Clinton was the only President to be married to a member of Congress: Hillary Rodham Clinton's service as a Senator officially began 18 days before his second term ended. 
*Centraal Beheer, a Dutch insurance company famous for its humorous commercials, once had a TV commercial involving Clinton and a voodoo doll. This commercial was taken down after a few weeks at the request of the White House.
*In November of 1997 President Clinton made history by being the first sitting President to speak to a gay rights organization. He gave a speech at a formal dinner hosted by the Human Rights Campaign. 
* The Clinton thumb gesture was popularized by Clinton.
thumb|right|Portrait of Clinton hanging in the dining hall of University College, Oxford.
*Clinton's campaign song during his first Presidential campaign was "Don't Stop" [Thinking About Tomorrow] by Fleetwood Mac. He even managed to persuade the then-defunct group to perform for his inaugural ball in 1993.
*Clinton's campaign theme and song during his second Presidential campaign was "Building the Bridge" by the rock band REO Speedwagon.  The phrase "Building the Bridge" was also used by Clinton in many of his speeches during the course of the campaign. 
*Clinton is, to date, the only sitting U.S. President to have shaken hands with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.  The two leaders found themselves standing next to each other at a U.N. photo op in September 2000.  As the 150 leaders in attendance were exiting for lunch, a chance bottle neck at the door put the two leaders side by side and the handshake took place.  They shook hands and exchanged what was described as small talk for a couple of minutes.  Richard Nixon shook Castro's hand when he was Vice-President, and Jimmy Carter has done so during his post-presidential years. 
* The first presidential Webcast, held by President Bill Clinton on 1999-11-08 live from George Washington University, is currently the only bona fide Internet-age broadcast in a Presidential library. The two hour internet broadcast entitled Townhall with President Clinton, hosted by Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council and directed by Marc Scarpa, was billed as an "Online Town Hall Meeting" ushering in 'The New Politics of the Information Age'".
*Appeared in a commercial with preceding president George Herbert Walker Bush encouraging donations to the Red Cross and other charities after the 2004 Tsunami.
*Appeared in a commercial for Nickelodeon's Let's Just Play Get Healthy Challenge.
*During the 1998 Stanley Cup Playoffs, Clinton made a bet with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on the playoff series between the Washington Capitals and the Ottawa Senators where the loser of the series had to wear the opposing team's jersey, the Capitals won the series four games to one and Chrétien had to wear a Capitals jersey.
*His press conference speech concerning the discovery of fossilized bacteria in a Martian meteorite was controversially recontenxtualized and incorporated into Robert Zemeckis' film adaptation of Carl Sagan's novel Contact.
*In 2003, he became the only politician to be the highlight of an E! True Hollywood Story.
*U.S. Representative Charles B. Rangel caused controversy on February 13, 2005, by blasting Bill Clinton as a Redneck in response to Hillary Clinton's refusal to support his views on the Amadou Diallo case.  
*In Europe, Bill Clinton remains immensely popular, especially in a large part of the Balkans and in Ireland. In Prishtina, Kosovo, an enormous 5 story picture of the former president was permanently engraved into the side of the tallest building in the province as a token of gratitude for Clinton's support during the crisis in Kosovo. 
* Mr. Clinton currently drives a Mercury Mariner hybrid SUV that has been custom fitted with a refrigerator and extra leg room.
Jasper23 01:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous facts

message: I have cut down large amounts of the text in the controversy section to make a more ordered list of interwikipedia webpages. When I have more time tonight or tomorrow I plan on putting summaries in front of those and maybe working on the sub-articles themselves. My goal is to make this article confom to discussion above under the heading of sub-articles. Any help would be appreciated. Jasper23 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: On February 26, 1993—thirty-six days after Clinton took office, terrorists who the CIA would later reveal were working under the direction of Osama bin Laden detonated a timed car bomb in the parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. (See World Trade Center bombing) President Clinton responded by ordering his National Security Council, under the direction of Anthony Lake, and the FBI to find and punish those responsible. The FBI was able to quickly identify the vehicle used in the bomb from a remnant found in the rubble: a Ryder rental van, which had been reported stolen in Jersey City, New Jersey the day before. The truck was rented by Mohammed Salameh, whom the FBI immediately detained. Similar evidence led to the arrests of other plotters behind the attack, including Nidal Ayyad, Mahmoud Abouhalima, Ahmad Ajaj, and Ramzi Yousef—who was identified as the key player in the bombing. All men were tried and convicted for the bombing and other terrorists activities.[49]
And the other 10 paragraphs should be developed into its own page. Was this a cut and paste job from a different article? If so, we should link it. Jasper23 01:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this was not a "cut and paste job." I wrote the section based on the various sources named throughout. Others mentioned expanding the section to include an account of President Clinton's Counterterrorism policy, which is what I did. I don't think you could make this into its own article, since it is just a summary of the counterterrorism policy of the Clinton administration. It is a good foundation for a separate article, but I would have to add much more. Mtmdem 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope I didnt offend. If I did I apologize. The section just appeared so quickly and is very well-sourced. Thank you for your well written addition to the article.Jasper23 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay—I took no offense. I understood yout concern and didn't intend my reply to be negative. I've been working on it since the interview on Fox, but I didn't want to put it into the article unto I had all my facts straight and my sources correct. Thank's for your response. Mtmdem 14:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterterrorism & Osama bin Laden