Talk:Juanita Broaddrick

message: Why was so much content gutted from this article, then redirected to an article that is about allegations against various presidents in general that is mostly content-free on this specific subject?  Something seems fishy here.  Badagnani 11:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is essentially no content gutted. Except for a sentence or two, this is exactly the same as in the other article. My position is there is no need for multiple copies of the same content. As Broaddrick has zero notability outside this incident, it makes no sense to say this is an article about a person, not an incident. However, if you'd rather organize the material independently, then I don't have a strong objection to that. We can just take the material on Selene Walters & Margie whatever and make those separate articles like this. What I do object to is people repeatedly trying to delete all such content from Wikipedia. Whether it's here or there is just an organizational matter, of secondary consequence. Personally, I found the material much more interesting juxtaposed, as it gave interesting context. But that can be accomplished almost equally well by a sentence or two in each article pointing to the others. Intimations of nefarious intent such as you made above are odious. Derex 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. My comment still stands with the exception of the 1st (don't know about then) and possibly the last sentences. Derex 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was a redirect for around a year and a half, but was reverted by an anonymous editor citing I cannot find a reason why an entire well-documented article was deleted, so I restored it. This article is not about an individual, but about specific events and claims regarding an incident that involved the individual. The difference between the content of this article and Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents#Bill Clinton is minimal. We either need to restore the longstanding redirect, or reduce and make the content more concise at the summary article. Having this much redundant content isn't helpful. I personally prefer restoring the redirect.-Andrew c 20:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What makes you think this article is about a person and not an incident? What information, specifically, do you believe only fits in this article, but not the proposed (and longstanding) redirect? This proposal is not an attempt to remove information, just reduce redundancy. If there is specific information included here, and unique to this page, please tell me what it is. I personally believe that having both (this article, and the large section at the rape accusations article) is too much and just repeating itself. If I'm mistaken,and there is unique content here about the individual (not the incident), I would recommend implementing my second proposal: reducing and summarizing the content at the accusations article, with a main article link back to here.-Andrew c 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You didn't answer my question. You are saying that I'm trying to remove "properly sourced information", and I ask again: what information is included here any not the other article? I understand that you believe this article may be foreseeably expandable. And that is the beauty of redirects (and wikipedia). If there come a time when there IS content that belongs here but not the accusations article, then we can simply re-create this article. But I do not believe it is helpful to have the exact same content here twice just because it may be possible in the future to expand this article, but not the other one. Therefore, I would propose again to restore the redirect, with the direct understanding that we can revert the redirect as soon as the article needs expanding.-Andrew c 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where was she born? What was her upbringing? Who was her first husband? Where did she go to school? The only informatin I get from this well-written article is about her alleged incident with Clinton. I propse renaming the article. Perhaps the Clinton/Broaddrick Rape Scandal? Its like writing a biography on Michael Jackson and ONLY talking about the child rape accusastions. --Art8641 15:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gutting of content

message: The article current mentions "the failed impeachment proceedings." However, the impeachment did not fail; Bill Clinton was impeached. The article used as a source mentions the Senate impeachment trial, but the Senate's role is (by law) to determine whether the impeached president should be removed from office or not. The fact that Bill Clinton was not removed from office does not mean the impeachment failed. So, I am removing the word, "failed" from that sentence. Pooua 01:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Impeachment Trial

message: We cannot say that "Clinton did not deny the charges" and then later say that Clinton denied the charges (via the proxy of this lawyer). SO which one is it? Do we have verifiable sources that make it clear that Clinton never denied the charges? And isn't that just an arguement from silence? Keep in mind WP:BLP... serious legal accusations against living people have to be neutral, notable, and verifiable.-Andrew c [talk] 01:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say seems quite reasonable--Clinton was rarely forced to answer hard questions during his eight years in office (except in his impeachment hearings and interview with Amy Goodman during the Gore campaign). It makes sense that he'd avoid even answering the charges and have it denied by one of his attornies. Badagnani 02:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good of you to wear your ideology on your sleeve like that ... it helps in understanding the positions you take. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denial 

message: Who is this person, and why do we care about her career such that a sentence about this story "advancing" her career was included in the article? I'm going to remove it, but I'd like to hear something from other people. 74.184.5.4  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katherine Proudhomme 

message: See Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_28#Image:Broaddrickcry_022499ap.jpg. Badagnani (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broaddrick photo up for deletion 

message: Citation 6 currently indicates that it is to an interview of Juanita Broaddrick by Sean Hannity, however it points instead to the same Washington Post story as Citation 5.  I can't find a link to the original interview, and it looks like the text that contains it comes from another page that was merged into this one.  I've found this transcript of the interview, which is reliable enough to confirm the contents, but not fit for citing in my opinion.  Can anyone locate the interview or a more authoritative link to the transcript? Carleas (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox News In terview 

message: Is it "Rodgers"? Or is it "Rogers"? Each occurs more than once. That is inept.76.8.67.2 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now all changed to 'Rogers', which looks to be the correct. 2600:1001:B12A:5D2E:6553:1A48:63A0:4EEF (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you please be consistent on the spelling for Norma's last name? 

message: Nice job if trying to smear the victim by stating twice that she was having an affair. Odd that you don't speak of Bill "the Rapist" Clinton's 13 billion affairs. I guess Wakopedia hates rape victims as much as you hate Christians.--69.14.193.153 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now said just once. 70.208.64.13 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Category error. Wikipedia is not an intentional agent, the sort of thing that can hate or have other emotions. There are numerous other errors of fact in your rant. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice job if trying to smear the victim 

message: This article is far from neutral, so I have added an NPOV tag. I have tried to make some improvements but this article needs a lot more work. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk)  01:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be much more specific about what it is you think is unneutral. A few section headers is not enough reason to tag entire page. 2600:1002:B115:CE1:BC90:1D7E:D2B3:BC31 (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the NPOV tag, following the guidelines. I also quickly tried to verify whether there was significant information the article leaves out that might make someone question its neutrality, but all I could find was essentially "dirt" on Juanita Broaddrick and some other involved people, which has been used as weak evidence that Broaddrick had motivation to fabricate the account; I would object to including this kind of "dirt" as it is only relevant to the article as unencyclopedic derogatory speculation about the thought processes of a living subject.192.16.204.74 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Citations are being deleted where they verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true these are just housekeeping edits due to how the Wikipedia references system works. 2600:1002:B115:CE1:BC90:1D7E:D2B3:BC31 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations are being deleted from the article 

message: Can we have a date of birth, as normal on Wiki pages? Valetude (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  d.o.b. please 

message: We have two witness accounts to Bill Clinton not able to have children, one of which says he was sterile.  This is circumstantial evidence being corroborated by two witness accounts. Shouldn't that raise the question as to Chelsea Clinton's paternity?  In which case, the statement that "Clinton would go on to father one child, Chelsea Clinton" simply makes the assumption that the claims are false without any proof to contradict those claims.  Rumors aside that Webster Hubbell (Senior Partner in the Rose Law firm where Hillary worked) is the real father of Chelsea and the resemblance she bore to him prior to her plastic surgery, the article should state simply that the claims made that Bill Clinton was not able to have children are not backed up by hard evidence, e.g. DNA, and the line that he fathered Chelsea Clinton should be removed entirely because adding it is prejudicial against the witnesses and unnecessary.Pvsalsedo (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this has anything to do with Juanita Broaddrick Wickedjacob (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chelsea Clinon Paternity