Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive 7

message: Upper case, lower case, which case is capitalized ?
A number of well-meaning wordsmiths are firm about two aspects of capitalization. First, if it refers to the first letter of the first word of any given sentence, then choose upper case. Secondly, if it refers to a title of office, then choose upper case (for that first letter).
For instance, as examples, they might cite:
1a. John Kennedy was the most beloved President of the United States.
2a. Lorraine Hargrave failed in his bid to be Governor of California.
3a. Historians agree that George Washington was the first President of the United States, Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States; but, they do not agree who was greater.
Each instance of capitalizaton, re reasons of title, is incorrect.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, Associated Press Manual of Style, Chicago Manual of Style, and Guardian Manual of Style, simply being a title is insufficient cause for upper case.
The title must be intimately united to the name of the individual, such that, it constitutes their name and not solely a description of their occupation or function.
So that, in the same examples, these authorities would cite:
1b. John Kennedy was the most beloved president of the United States.
2b. Lorraine Hargrave failed in his bid to be governor of California.
3b. Historians agree that George Washington was the first president of the United States, Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States; but, they do not agree who was greater.
More examples of correct and incorrect usage:
1a. Only when President (correct) Johnson . . .
1b. Only when president (incorrect) Johnson . . .
2a. We'll take this to Governor (correct) Libby, the 3rd governor (correct) of Nevada, . . .
2b. We'll take this to governor (incorrect) Libby, the 3rd Governor (incorrect) of Nevada, . . .
Only when the title is tight with the name and preceeds it, is it capitalized - all other instances, you don't.
Note, I don't hold this because my daddy, mommy, or 3rd-grade teacher, told me so; likewise, I don't hold this because I heard or read "something", "somewhere", about the need to capitalize titles.
Look up any specific American president, English prime minister, or Big Cheese governor or premier, in a reputable reference (as those mentioned), to prove my thinking wrong.
If my understanding is incorrect, please demonstrate in what manner - with a supporting reference - that I can access and verify via the library. Thanks. --Curiouscdngeorge 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have been through this before, and it really is getting boring.  " The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun."  The formal name of the President of the United States is the President of the United States.  Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Titles.  So there you go, I'm reverting your edits.  Orangemarlin 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently you failed to read WP:CIVIL.  Please read the quote.  The formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun.  You didn't edit something generic like "Clinton was the 42nd American president" where the capitalization is completely correct.  You change, "President of the United States" to "president of the United States."  Yeah, I can read.  And please be civil.  Orangemarlin 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Orangemarlin is correct. The relevent part from MOS:CL reads The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan." Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. KeL 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As for reading and understanding, apparently you missed out on WP:CIVIL.  Orangemarlin 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, you did not make that change.  Please review this [Dif].  So please, I can read, I tell the truth, and I know about what I speak.  Orangemarlin 03:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Style for Title of Office 

message: Though it has a citation, the Freemasonry reference in the "Early Years" section seems forced.  I am considering removing it as non-notable.  Wanted to post this for discussion before doing so.K. Scott Bailey 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmn, I might have to delete this comment of yours. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, no defense of why it actually is notable, just a childish threat?  If I don't hear a cogent defense of why Clinton not being a Freemason is notable, I will be removing it, your threats aside.K. Scott Bailey 16:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I view deleting comments without notice as childish. That's right, I'm talking about your actions. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The commentary that was deleted had nothing to do with the discussion of the article, and just had more to do with some gutter-sniping at the subject matter, so I'd say that it is highly inappropriate for the talk page.  If Kscottbailey hadn't removed it, I would have done so myself. Tarc 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment: I second arguments of Tarc above. LordHarris 18:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe.  But isn't that just censoring, because it relies on your two OPINIONS of the matter?  Orangemarlin 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion is trifling in the face of the law of the land. Wikipedia policies are the law of the land; end of discussion. I bet if you handed those two the Constitution they'd defile it as if it were a Word document. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 08:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton and Freemasonry 

message: Some of the images need a fair use rationale, or since its showing him in his presidential duties, the license can be changed so a fur is not required. --Nehrams2020 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images comment

message: The article states 
his first term also was fraught with difficulties, including an unpopular motor vehicle tax and citizens' anger over the escape of Cuban prisoners (from the Mariel boatlift) 
Were these prisoners detained for criminal acts, or refugees awaiting process? This needs clarifying because the Marielitos overwhelmingly belonged to the latter group.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981365-3,00.html LordHarris 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I thought, they were refugees, thanks for the link Lord Harris. The change has been made.-- Zleitzen(talk) 06:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuban prisoners

message: this is one of the worst presidents in US history (in my opinion the worst since Truman) many of the problems e.g. Iraq that are being dealt with by the present government are the result of actions and inaction during the Clinton years,  and the article does nothing, nothing to explain why this is the case, there is no drawing together of the multitude of political, sexual and financial scandals that beset the Clinton regime in any meaningful way that can relate to policy issues. while i see that there must be attributable sources surely there has been enuf academic and journalistic interest in clintons problems so that there is something to quote out there on some meaningful hypotheses/theories about why and how things did get so messed up (sometimes only manifesting after he had gone - eg Iraq) Richy-rik 04:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you are entitled to your view on Clinton but unless you have reputable sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources to support your views you then making changes to the talk page based on opinion isnt appropriate. Just to note as well - biographies of living people need to conform to neutral points of view. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Furthermore unless you are actually discussing changes to the article, using reputable sources etc, than the talk page isnt a place for your own personal dislikes or likes of the President. Talk pages are not a platform for your personal views: Wikipedia:Talk page. LordHarris 10:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exchange Clinton's name with a president that you like and see if your post still sounds reasonable.  It's a way to check to see if you need sources to support your statement.  --Darth Borehd 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Worst President

message: The article says the Clinton "lied under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky". This is not technically true and is the source of much debate, about which there is no uniform consensus. The sentence should read "allegedly lied under oath" or "was accused of lying under oath."
:Hmmm...Its been a while, but I seem to remember Clinton saying, under oath, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" but later admitted that he did have sexual relations with her.  The House impeached him for it, but the Senate did not convict him.  While it was not determined in a court of law that he had committed perjury, its generally accepted that he did lie about it, but that the Senate didn't feel that it would warrant his removal from office.  How then is this not technically true?--Mbc362 04:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You "seem to remember" incorrectly. That statement was made to the press, not under oath. It is certainly NOT "generally accepted" that he lied under oath. His sworn testimony was technically truthful under the legal definitions Jones' own lawyers proposed for his testimony. If you want to discuss this topic you should, as a start, know something about it. 204.128.192.8 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please excuse me for not remembering correctly something that occurred a decade ago.  Now, if you want to discuss anything on Wikipedia, you should probably read up on the ground rules, namely WP:CIVIL.--Mbc362 01:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately for Clinton he did lie under oath about his sexual relations so the sentance is technically correct. However what was and still is open to interpretation is a.) whether his lie constituted an impeachable offence and b.) because it was in regards to his private life (although part of his time in the White House, it did not interfer with his actual job or execuation of official duties). So UserMbc362 is correct - although he had committed perjury (for which I believe he was disbarred as a practicising lawyer) the senate did not warrant that the perjury (or 3 other charges) were sufficient for impeachment. LordHarris 09:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong and wrong. First, by the legal definitions Jones' lawyers requested for his testimony, he did NOT lie about his relations with Lewinsky. Second, he was NOT disbarred for committing perjury as you "believe", but for unspecified "serious misconduct" under the rules of the Arkansas Bar. If you want to discuss this topic you should, as a start, know something about it. 204.128.192.8 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" was not said under oath, and I believe that the House Managers never actually specified any perjurious words in the official charges. Clinton was charged with perjury in front of the grand jury, which was where he ADMITTED his affair.  Carlo 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed and thats what it currently reads in the article. Though just to make clear, he lied (therefore permitted perjury)  before the Grand Jury (which was recored on video and later used in the senate hearings), but later admitted the relationship at a later date. A good book on the whole event is Sidney Blumenthals Clinton Wars - lots of references if someone is interested in addding. LordHarris 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually he never could be convicted of perjury in a court since he would have to be proven to knowingly lie. His answer was technically accurate, although deceptive. There is a great deal of debate as to the actual fact of perjury(s). There was actually more than one count that he was charged with, it wasn't just the one statement regarding sexual relations with that woman. Remember all the fuss about sexual relations and how you define it? Well it was legally defined, and according to that definition, Monica performing oral sex on Clinton did not fit (although it would have if Clinton had performed oral sex on her). While this may seem specious, understand this definition was agreed upon by both parties in the lawsuit before Clinton was asked the question under oath. Ironically, if he had said yes he would have perjured himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.2.87 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  According to all accounts, the specific legal definition of the word "sex" he asked for and received from the prosecution clearly specified vaginal intercourse as the definition of the word "sex."  Therefore, he did not perjure himself.  The bar association later charged him with manipulating the court to avoid perjury.  They fined him about $100,000 and suspended his license.  --Darth Borehd 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Clinton "lie?"

message: I looked up a reference and changed the language to fit the citation.  Maybe not a big deal, but the reference (#12 when I saw it...citation is a Press Conference) says (paraphrased) income over 200k, not wealthiest 1.2%.  Are these 2 figures the same?  If so, consider adding a 2nd citation linking 200k and 1.2%KMCtoday 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accurately cite references, please

message: I'm no expert on Bill Clinton, but there seems to be a problem. The article says in the introduction that he was born "William Jefferson Blythe III" with a citation [1], but in the first section of the article, it suggests that he was born "William Jefferson Blythe IV" with the same citation.
Anyone?
Rageous 16:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "William Jefferson Blythe III" is the correct one; I went ahead and fixed it.--Mbc362 18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in his birth name. 

message: There is no mention of the war in Bosnia or the rocket attack on a Syrian hospital.  Both of which were significant events during his presidency.  --Darth Borehd 06:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick mention that this is an article about Clinton himself with only a brief discussion of his time as President. If the events you mention are significant to his presidency/administration etc then I suggest adding them to either Foreign policy of the Clinton Administration or Clinton Administration as these would be more appropriate. Please dont forget to provide valid references/sources WP:REF. Thanks.LordHarris 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other events on Clinton presidency that are missing... 

message: I noticed that Monica was on the Sex Scandal list, but not Bill.  It takes two to tango, as they say.  I have added him, feel free to change it but only if explaining why.  CodeCarpenter 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article, please.  here's what I see on a quick look:  1) Second paragraph in the lead; 2) its own subsection for trial in this article;  3)discussion in other sections; and - please don't miss this - 4) an additional separate article, wikilinked prominently here, devoted completely to the impeachment.  He was governor for 12 years, president for 8 and had a life before and after.  The impeachment gets plenty of weight in this article. Tvoz |talk 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex Scandal? 

message: Is it not notable that he was the first U.S. president to visit Vietnam?--M a s 06:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reference then I suggest placing in in Foreign policy of the Clinton Administration. LordHarris 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: whence Vietnam?

message: I thought the authors of this article would like to hear of this review of the article. In an attempt to judge the reliability of Wikipedia, The Denver post asked 5 experts to review wikipedia articles, including this one.
The review has the following to say about this article:
:Bob Loevy, a political science professor at Colorado College and frequent writer on Bill Clinton, said the President Clinton entry was thorough and unbiased, giving fair weight to both Clinton accomplishments and scandals. The bulk of it appeared to have been written by the Clinton Museum and Library in Little Rock, Ark., Loevy said. 
:It would have been a great place for a student to begin building his or her knowledge" on Clinton, Loevy said. As did the other professors, Loevy said he cautions his students to treat Wikipedia like any other single book in the library - any fact cited there should be double-checked somewhere else.
Jens Nielsen 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external review 

message: On the page, where it says his birth date it says:
Born: August 19, 1946 (age 60)
74.92.251.34 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Age 60 is his current age, its in brackets and so is seperate from born date. He is 61 in August.LordHarris 15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born at age 60? 

message: I have made several large edits and thought I would just explain here. Ive reorganised the post presidential section so its now a lot more clear and makes sense. I have removed a lot of repeated information and changed the style of some sentances. Ive added about twenty references and have expanded some sections, adding info on Clinton and his wives candidacy for democratic nom for example. Hopefully the article now seems a lot more organised, referenced etc.LordHarris 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: This article is undergoing reevaluation for its current GA status. Happyme22 04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] 

message: The picture has Bentsen as Tres. Sec., and therefore should not say 1997. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.2.72.220 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected to 1993. LordHarris 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  caption on cabinet picture 

message: Article now reads "Though initially well-received in political circles, it was ultimately doomed by well-organized opposition from conservatives, the American Medical Association, and the health insurance industry."
Isn't this just opinion? http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/20starr.html  What kind of magazine is "American Prospect"?  It says..."health care reform dead. The funeral was private; no crowds gathered in mourning.............the complexity of the plans and onslaught of criticism had even left many supporters bewildered and uncertain. 
So should we list opponents included bewildered supporters?  
I don't know the answer but I think the current wording is not completely correct and smells of some kind of bias.Chergles 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The health care reform program was doomed by opposition and poor organisation on the part of the Clinton Administration. There is a whole section on this in the neutral account by Joe Klein. I will use the book to rewrite the section and add references in the near future. LordHarris 12:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hillary Clinton statement, not supported by references?

message: By a vote of 5-1, this article shall keep Good Article status. The review discussion can be seen here. 
Regards, LaraLoveT/C 05:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GA|Good Article]] [[WP:GA/R|review]] results

message: I feel that it should be mentioned that he engaged in anal-oral contact with Monica Lewinksy. This is in the Starr report and I feel that it was important that the people know that their president was committing these acts which at the time were illegal in Texas until Lawrence v. Texas.--William Henry Harrison 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill Clinton and Monica were not in Texas at the time, but in Washington, were sensible laws (and people) allow a variety of sexual acts between CONSENTING ADULTS. LordHarris 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anal-Oral Sex

message: The first sentence of this article refers to Bill Clinton as GCL, referring to an honor he received from the government of Papua New Guinea. However, even though other presidents such as Eisenhower and Reagan have received honors from other countries which would entitle them to postnominal letters, those honors are mentioned much further down in their articles, not in the first sentence. In fact, no other 20th-century president has any foreign honors identified by postnominal letters in the introduction to his article, and Clinton is not referred to as "Bill Clinton, GCL" in his own country's media or any other normal context in the United States, as far as I know. I would recommend removing the Papua New Guinea GCL from the first sentence and listing it under Clinton's honors and awards only. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postnominal letters 

message: Can we get some sort of attribution on this inflammatory, idiotic Rush Limbaugh-like claim? Wikipedia really needs to remove the lies and Fox/Rush/Drudge propaganda that the winguts routinely insert in various articles on this site. Otherwise Wiki will have zero credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.155.6 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2007
:Follow the source given  at the end of that sentence, and you will see that the text is supported and sourced.  Might be a good idea to word it better to sound less weasel-ish though. Tarc 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Clinton left office with polls revealing that most questioned his morals and ethics" 

message: This article is so full of left wing POV pushing it reads like it was taken from his autobiogrophy, BLP is one thing, but why are there NO notable cirtisms present? --—(Kepin)RING THE <B>LIBERTY</b> BELL 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Says the person who just blanked the criticism section from George W. Bush.  - auburnpilot talk 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument--—(Kepin)RING THE <B>LIBERTY</b> BELL 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill_Clinton#Controversies is quite lengthy already, with links to articles that cover the controversies in greater detail.  If you wish to add to verifiable content that is reliably sourced to the section, then by all means do so.  if you're hoping to see things like the "Clinton Body Count"  listed though, I think you're in for some serious disappointment. Tarc 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, just wow 

message: I think it's ironic that the article connects a tax rise on wealthy Americans to economic progress.  It would be safer to connect the economic growth to, say, the rise of the Internet, considerable technological advances, and increased worker productivity.  Safest of all, the economic recovery began before Bill Clinton assumed office.  Jessemckay 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does no such thing.  Please don't politicize the talk page. Silly rabbit 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Surprisingly, it does.  This definitely needs to be changed.  As you rightly say, the economic expansion was likely due in part to externalities beyond the scope of tax legislation.  Silly rabbit 21:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton Policy and Economic Growth