Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive 4

message: Since this article is now bigger than the preferred size, I think that it should be broken up into smaller chunks with the Bill Clinton page itself becoming a directory to these pages.  New pages could be donoted as follows family and early career,  govenorship,  presidency, and post-presidency.  I think his presidency may have to be broken up into at least two pages, one for each term at least. This is my two cents on the matter. Gmosaki 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree. I agree on the fact that there should be a page for his presidency. SNIyer12 18:49, 23 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that some of the more lengthy material should be spun off into sub-articles.  I strongly disagree that the Bill Clinton page should become merely a directory to these pages.  The main page should be an encyclopedia article, summarizing the important material, with links to expanded discusssions of various topics in the sub-articles.  The point is that one shouldn't have to wade through all that stuff to get a basic understanding of the topic ... otherwise, why have sub-articles at all? Derex 16:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking up article

message: Hi, Please excuse any talk page guidelines I have unwittingly broken, I'm pretty new to this.
I am curious why the article states that Clinton's "approval rating varied over the course of his first term, ranging from about 40% in 1993"?  A coworker of mine asked me what Clinton's lowest approval rating was, I answered 40% based on this page.  The coworker pointed me to this page from Roper:
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Clinton
Which seems to show that for two months some polls were consistently showing an approval rating as low as 36%.
I would prefer to believe the polls were biased or poorly done but...?
jerry 16:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinton Approval -- Lower than 40%?

message: Would it be appropriate to add the following:
In September 2005, the Guangzhou Rubber Group, a rubber products manufacture, announced they would be manufacturing a line of condoms named Clinton (and another named Lewinsky). The company spokesman stated the reasoning behind the naming was that Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky "...are symbols of people who are responsible and dedicated to their jobs." (source: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050921/ap_on_fe_st/clinton_condoms)
--- N0YKG 18:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Clinton Condom 

message: While I haven't scrutinized the entire  page, I like a lot of what I see. I especially like the way you handled all the unsubstantiated rumors floating around Bill Clinton. Exemplary work. Big Daddy 13:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me. In terms of syntax, I think the first sentence should be. "Clinton's character and policies were viewed with intense, personal dislike by some conservative critics." The change to the Waco thing makes sense. It wasn't "far right hostility" after the fact—across the spectrum people thought it was a screw-up. Marskell 12:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  No.  "Fomented" should stand.  It was removed with a specious, untrue, and silly "justification," and it's back for just that reason.  By the way, you've been Referred for Arbitration, based on nearly a month of vandalism and POV edits.  Here's the RfA page .  You were also Referred for Comment, but you refused to comment on that page after weeks of requests by several Wiki editors.  I suggest you check both pages out.  Now, is this the fiftiegh time you've sworn to use your "Clinton model" to treat "innuendos in other articles?"  Please know that should you make any POV edit, it will be reverted, in compliance with Wiki policies.  Eleemosynary 04:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like what I see 

message: :His domestic agenda also included more conservative themes such as reforming welfare programs, expanding the "War on Drugs", and increasing law enforcement funding
Is the phrasing "more conservative themes" NPOV? --Dpr 03:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Why is there such a long list of books for further reading, but not a single source cited? Johnleemk | Talk 16:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. How about a reference for the trivia that he is allergic to beef and dairy.  Seems I recall he has a taste for cheeseburgers, which would not seem to jive with having allergies to the main ingredients. older≠wiser 01:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References, references! 

message: See the Phi Beta Kappa Wikipedia site. Clinton was elected to Phi Beta Kappa in 1968 and is one of only 4 Presidents to have an earned Phi Beta Kappa key.  —preceding unsigned comment by 205.188.116.6 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 October 2005  (UTC)
: This information checks out, as per the Phi Beta Kappa website at pbk.org and several other reputable sites.  In the future, please WP:CITE your source(s) so others can check your work.  Using a Wikipedia article as a source citation within another Wikipedia article is not a good idea.  In practice, please provide external links as Wikipedia articles can change at a moments notice.  Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinton a Georgetown Phi Beta Kappa

message: CBDunkerson recently reverted an edit of mine where I noted that according to Roper, Clinton's approval rating had dropped to as low as 36%.  CBDunkerson's edit comment was: "If we are including outliers we should do so in both directions. Also fixed link."
I have several questions:
A)  What is an outlier?  When I visit the Roper Poll I had linked to, , I (reluctantly) note that they have 21 data points for approval between 5/26/93 and 8/3/93, a period of a bit more than two months, or 1/6 of 1993, or 2% of his entire term.  Within this period, Roper lists 10 data points showing Clinton's approval below 40%.  Those 10 data points seemingly represent repeated polling by 4 polling agencies.  So for the period in question almost 50% of the data points are less than 40%.  In what sense then is a mentioning that Bill Clinton had a low of 36% approval rating relying on an outlier?
B)  Which outlier on the high end are you referring to?  I say that if it makes sense, list it.  But that's just me.
C)  How are these sorts of polls handled on other wikipedia topic pages?
If you can help me get my bet back my demonstrating that the 5/26-27/93 Yank/TIME/CNN 36% rating is to be discarded I would appreciate that.  But it seems like a reasonable data point and not an outlier to me.
jerry 03:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... I didn't revert your edit. It's still there. As to why it's an 'outlier'... it appeared once in a single poll with a small sample size. --CBDunkerson 08:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well please accept my sincere apologies then, I'm new at this wiki wiki intarweb stuff.   I swear that when I looked at the page a day or so ago, I didn't see the 36%.  (And I must say once more I would have preferred winning the bet and not losing it.) --jerry 02:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a week or two.  Right now Bush is at 36%... tied with Clinton's low during the Hilary healthcare debacle.  And that's BEFORE the indictments coming down.  After the indictments Bush'll drop below 36%. --CBDunkerson 12:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *Indictments>? Try living outside of fantasy land for a while--Here I come to save the day 13:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The US 'conservative' capacity for projection never ceases to amaze me. GWB says that he can cut taxes, greatly increase spending, and still maintain the budget surplus, and 'conservatives' start chanting "No more fuzzy math"... at >Al Gore<.  Now, the ability to read the writing on the wall (in the big fiery letters) is depicted as 'living in fantasy land'.  We shall see.  One of us is indeed living in a 'fantasy land'... and before the week is out we will know which. --CBDunkerson 10:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Approval Ratings -- What is an outlier? 

message: I've "merged" the Socks the cat page into this page. A more experienced Wiki user is needed to help delete the Socks page. --mwazzap 02:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  I have no idea why User:Randy Johnston reverted your merge. --Viriditas  | Talk 03:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged "Socks the cat page" into article 

message: Does anyone know anything about the source and/or background of the quote "We can't be so fixated on the rights of ordinary Americans", attributed to Clinton by many extremist critics? --Dpr 05:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rights quote

message: OK I know that this is a big can of worms, but I'm thinking of making some evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes to both of these sections. Healthcare seems ok except that it's fairly short and repetitive, and needs some stylistic work. Welfare reform needs to be explored, too. This was a key turning point in the clinton presidency, and lead to the resignation of at least one cabinet official. You can't talk about Clinton without mentioning his complex, triangular relationship between liberal democrats, congressional (conservative) republicans, and his own administration; simply saying "he supported welfare reform" doesn't do it. 
Anyway, I wanted to get some ideas before I made any changes.
Wellspring 14:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Healthcare and Welfare Reform: Political Consequences

message: What happened to the section of Clinton's bio pertaining to his early life?  There is no mention of his parents, Hope AR, etc.  Did some vandal delete it?  Gilliamjf 13:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have returned his early life section, hoping it stays this time.  Gilliamjf 18:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton's Early Life 

message: Clinton was allergic to beef? Didn't he dine at McDonald's all the time?  Honestly, I find this difficult to believe despite the citation.  Do we have another citation that isn't from "Doctor Zebra"? Gamaliel 08:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's what's for dinner? 

message: The 9th paragraph under "Special Events" ends with the line: "He was not tried for or guilty of perjury."  I edited in the word "found" in front of guilty, to make it a statement of fact rather than a moral judgement of Clinton's guilt or innocence, but I still have a question about the overall accuracy of the sentence. In the Lewinsky scandal page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal) it says Clinton received an "acquittal for charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in a 21-day Senate trial."  Do these sentences not contradict each other? Grandiloquos 14:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perjury 

message: Copy of my "Jimmy" Carter discussion... Funny that it happens to Democratic presidents, eh?  Who decided that diminuitive "Popular" names are appropriate?:  
It is somewhat degrading to presidents Clinton and Carter to place them under articles using their "familiar" names.   To put this article under "Jimmy" Carter is entirely inappropriate, notably since other wikipedias use James E. Carter or James Earl Carter.  It seems that foreigners have more respect for democratic presidents than we do.
It is also entirely unencyclopedic.  We don't place Ernest Hemingway under "Papa" Hemingway, nor Elizabeth II under "Queen Elizabeth".    What about "Dick" Nixon, or "Gerry" Ford?  "Ron" Reagan?  Bastique 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please.  In reality, Bill Clinton is known as such in the serious news media - and by the man himself - except when they and he are being really hyperformal, which we don't aspire to.  The media does not use "Dick Nixon" or "Ron Reagen" anywhere like as much.  This violates longstanding convention.  Move it back. Morwen - Talk 14:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We have a pretty clear guideline on this. Clinton's full name is only ever used in the most formal of settings, and even then he is "William Jefferson Clinton", never "William J. Clinton". This should be moved back to Bill Clinton. android79 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yep agree with Android, Bill Clinton is what this president is almost always called, and our article should therefore be under that name. The analogies to Hemingway, Nixon, Ford and Reagan are weak. People commonly refer to those as Ernest, Richard, Gerald and Ronald, Clinton is commonly referred to as "Bill". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree absolutely. This is a no-brainer for me - it should be at Bill. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In fact, Clinton is used as the first example of this naming convention on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Examples. I'm moving it back. android79 14:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill vs. William J. 

message: Could someone just briefly outline the rationale for this measure? This article isn't vandalized to an extent where admins and diligent users can't handle it. Has there been a spurt of vandalism recently to warrant this? Semi-protection shouldn't be used just because it's there. Thanks. Harro5 05:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected? 

message: I think it possible that some people would be interested in the "where are they now" type question about presidential pets, so it's reasonable to report Buddy's death.  Nevertheless, we're overdoing it to give the exact intersection at which he was hit and the name of the driver of the car.  I've removed these details.  Anyone who feels that Wikipedia cannot hold its head up unless it provides this information should feel free to add it to Buddy (dog) (along with finding out what make of car it was, I suppose). JamesMLane 10:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddy, R.I.P. 

message: That thread up there seems to be dead, so let me reiterate:
I see that this isn't a new issue here.  The introduction mentions that he was "the third-youngest president," and "the first baby boomer president," but not that he was only one of two Presidents to be impeached.  The intro to the Andrew Johnson article mentions he was the first to be impeached.  The intro to the Richard Nixon article mentions impeachment, even though Nixon was not impeached.  Regardless of one's POV about the justification or motivations behind the impeachment, or the conduct that inspired it, to me it seems like it is at least as historically notable as his age on election or his status as a Baby Boomer.  Kaisershatner 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impeachment and Nixon, redux 

message: I've unprotected the page as per the request on WP:RPP. If you need full or semi-protection again please post another request on WP:RPP. Thanks. Izehar 19:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Professor Von Pie, thank you for your recent work to expand this article's information on Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  And thank you for including references with your more recent edits.  They do discuss Clinton's pledge to end the ban on gays in the military.  But you already included a note about that earlier in the paragraph.  The new claims immediately preceding the references are that 1) Clinton specifically pledged to end the ban by executive order, and 2) that he mentioned Truman's similar order in doing so.  But I can't find anything in the two references to support either claim.  Am I missing something?  --Allen 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too appreciate the fact that Professor Von Pie got some good sources this time, but I also have a couple problems with the way it is worded now. First, the sources don't prove that Clinton made the promise as an "outreach to gain gay votes and gay campaign contributions".  What they do show is that some prominent gay commentators believe that he did this.  So it should not be stated as a fact.  Second, as you point out, there's nothing in there to show that Clinton pledged to end the ban by executive order.  However, I don't think Professor Von Pie is trying to make the claim that Clinton mentioned Truman's similar order.  He is saying that gay commentators have mentioned it.  Of course, there is no source for that either. - Maximusveritas 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't ask, don't tell