| Revision as of 00:22, 5 September 2012 edit174.103.114.44 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:21, 12 January 2025 edit undo150.143.27.183 (talk)No edit summary |
| (112 intermediate revisions by 59 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
⚫ |
{{afd-merged-from|I did not have sexual relations with that woman|I did not have sexual relations with that woman|11 July 2009}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
⚫ |
{{On this day|date1=2004-08-17|oldid1=9955998|date2=2004-12-19|oldid2=8742503|date3=2005-12-19|oldid3=31949203|date4=2006-12-19|oldid4=95048557|date5=2012-01-26|oldid5=473259063|date6=2012-08-17|oldid6=507875002|date7=2015-08-17|oldid7=676253223|date8=2018-01-26|oldid8=822369139}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|class=start |living=yes |listas= Lewinsky scandal}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=low|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|collapsed=yes|listas=Lewinsky scandal|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
{{WikiProject Past Political Scandals and Controversies|class=Start|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=yes|American-importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
| collapse=yes |
|
|
| title1=Lewinsky scandal |
|
|
| title2=Clintogate |
|
|
| list= |
|
|
* RM, Lewinsky scandal → ?, '''no consensus/withdrawn''', 15 February 2008, ] |
|
|
* RM, Lewinsky scandal → ?, '''moved''' to '''Clinton–Lewinsky scandal''', 3 December 2017, ] |
|
|
* RM, Lewinsky scandal → Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, '''procedural close''', 11 December 2017, ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(365d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Clinton–Lewinsky scandal/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 2 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| ⚫ |
{{afd-merged-from|I did not have sexual relations with that woman|I did not have sexual relations with that woman|11 July 2009}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-08-17|oldid1=9955998|date2=2004-12-19|oldid2=8742503|date3=2005-12-19|oldid3=31949203|date4=2006-12-19|oldid4=95048557|date5=2012-01-26|oldid5=473259063|date6=2012-08-17|oldid6=507875002}} |
|
|
{{archive box collapsible|· ]<br />· ].}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Collaterals== |
|
|
So no one mentions that the press only laxed their coverage once Clinton decided to bomb Afghanistan? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Definition of "sexual relations"== |
|
|
''See also ].''<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
I also think the "Perjury" section should point out the legal definition of the term "sexual relations". Clinton was certainly parsing, certainly not telling a whole truth, but he was following the technical, legalese definition of "sexual relations" when he made the denial. That's an important part of the story. |
|
|
(MBVECO) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:<br /> |
|
|
:<small>Clinton later stated, "I thought the definition included any activity by , where was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies ". In other words, Clinton believed the agreed-upon definition of ''sexual relations'' would have included ''giving'' oral sex but excluded his ''receiving'' ].</small><br /> |
|
| ⚫ |
:--] (]) 18:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Something sounds bad in the 2nd paragraph == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is taken from the article (2nd paragraph): |
|
|
|
|
|
In 1995, Monica Lewinsky, a graduate of Lewis & Clark College, '''was hired to work as an intern at the White House during Clinton's first term, and began a personal relationship with him''' later to her friend and Defense department co-worker Linda Tripp, who secretly recorded their telephone conversations. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the text in bold is not well written. Since my mother tongue is not English, I leave it for others to work it out. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Sources== |
|
|
''See also ].'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::As I mentioned above, court documents and forensic evidence are preferable, but journals and newspapers are fine so long as they cite their sources. Currently the offered source is a dead link - could someone fix it or provide another source? --] (]) 01:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Unrelated scandals== |
|
|
''See also ].''<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== 2003 ? == |
|
This article is about one particular scandal. There were/are/will be others. They need not all be here. --] (]) 17:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Re : -"Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) US Representative, voted to impeach Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal while he himself, was having a long-term affair with his chief of staff, Jennifer Laptook. (2003" - what does the "(2003)" reference here? ] (]) 20:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Over-coverage claims == |
|
:The additional info about Livingston and the others highlights the trivial nature of the charges and the hypocrisy of the accusers. Gingrich and the "New Republicans" CHOSE to emphasize Christian beliefs and Family values in their sweep of Congress. The fact they were lying at the time is fundamental to this article. True, not every affair since then should be mentioned, but more than one is certainly necessary. richrakh```` ] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Highlighting the trivial nature of the charges is not our job. If its in a reliable source, is relevant to this subject (like Livingston) and follows ] then we can put it in, otherwise, it has no place. The fact that you think the republicans were lying at the time is immaterial to this article. In my opinion, none of the newly added material should be included. ] (]) 18:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
I think that the over-coverage claims need some more recent citations. These are all from the early 2000s and (I know this is OR territory here) attitudes towards scandals like this - particularly where one is in a position of power like Clinton - has shifted significantly since then in the US. More recent criticism seems to be on the nature of the coverage, not the over-coverage per se. —] (]) 16:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
: ]ly this from the lead (there wasn't any elaboration on this in the body of the article anyway, and the lead shouldn't include info that's not in the article prose). −] (]) 09:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Why is the name of Monica Lewinsky in the title of this article? == |
|
:::'''Agree''' that ]]'s newly added material doesn't belong here. --] (]) 18:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I reviewed the other requests for moving this article, but it seems to me that this has never been discussed: Why is Lewinsky´s name in the title of this article? For me, this very much looks like victim blaming - because that is what she was: the victim in all of this. Perpetrator is definitely Bill Clinton, and maybe others - but Lewinsky? I cannot find anything in the article that suggest that she was part of the scandal - she had sex with a co-worker, which in itself is no concern of anyone. The scandal is about how Clinton behaved in the aftermath - but not how Lewinsky behaved. I dont know what the right title for this page would be, but would argue that the name "Lewinsky" should not be part of it.--] (]) 09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Agree. Propose renaming to "the Clinton Scandal" as is the preferred nomenclature (, etc) and as is also . ] (]) 14:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
::::Highlighting BOTH sides of the scandal IS our job. And just how is Bob Livingston's affair (which you have allowed to remain) more relevant than Newt Gingrich's? richrakh```` |
|
|
:::::The Lewinsky scandal DIRECTLY RESULTED in exposing ], thus Livingston's scandal was COLLATERAL. This article is not the place for a list of UNRELATED scandals. Please stop putting them here.<br /> --] (]) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Article is extraordinarily unclear == |
|
Hmmm. I do not agree, but I concede that Gingrich, et al, may be left out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was trying to explain this article to my Taiwanese girlfriend who was unfamiliar with it and noticed that this article is extraordinarily unclear about what actually happened. The popular understanding, which has no doubt influenced many Americans’ personal relationships one way or another, is “Clinton got a blowjob in the oral office.” The type of sex act performed is also central to Clinton’s famous statements about the definition of “sexual relations.” But the word “blowjob” is nowhere in the article and “oral sex” does not appear in the introduction nor under “Allegations of sexual contact,” and only under “perjury charges,” where it is implied but not directly stated that Clinton received oral sex. |
|
But you have concluded that Larry Flynt has a direct bearing on this scandal, which is why the information about Livingston is allowed to remain. Unfortunately, your source reference, the Guardian.Co.UK, is in error. There was more than “one scalp” dug up by Flynt. Congressman Bob Barr as well as Livingston DIRECTLY RESULTED from Flynt’s investigation and if you include one, you must include the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition Henry Hyde, R-IL, was the CHAIRMAN of the House Judiciary Committee which prosecuted Clinton and should be mentioned as well. Though he survived politically, his affair was also revealed at the time, so he too was COLLATERAL and needs to be included. As you can see, these three and their affairs are DIRECTLY RELATED to the Lewinsky scandal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I found this article where Lewinsky claims that the sexual acts in question didn’t actually occur in the Oval Office: |
|
Finally, you should read ]. Particularly ] and ]. richrakh```` |
|
|
:The Hyde and Barr affairs may possibly be considered "collateral" since they were revealed as a result of Clinton's affair. Yet the other two had no (or little) affect on anything and so can hardly be called "scandals". Still, I left them in. --] (]) 12:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you. richrakh```` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Parties== |
|
|
It does not seem appropriate to append a "(D)" or "(R)" label to each and every person mentioned in the article. Plainly, the one place where political party ''must'' be mentioned is in stating that ''Clinton's party'' was in the minority in Congress at the time. Thus, the article's ] formerly stated:<br /> |
|
|
<small>In December 1998, Clinton's political party, the Democratic Party, was in the minority in both chambers of Congress. Some Democratic members of Congress, and most in the opposition Republican Party, believed that...</small><br /> |
|
|
Yet, the same editor (who elsewhere injects labels of "(D)" or "(R)" after names) here prefers that the section ''not mention'' Clinton's party and its then-minority status. That editor prefers the wording:<br /> |
|
|
<small>Most Republicans in Congress – who held the majority in both Houses at the time – and some Democrats believed that</small><br /> |
|
|
While party membership certainly seemed to affect whether a particular politician lined up with or against Clinton, there were many and significant exceptions to that supposition. Of course, party affiliation should not be hidden in the article (which it was not), but neither should it be pretended that impeachment was a clear-cut ] vs ] dichotomy. I've removed the "R" and "D" labels, and reinstated the statement about Clinton's party in the article's ] --] (]) 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have NEVER suggested that Clinton's party not be mentioned. I object to the fact that the political affiliation of everyone else in the article is not mentioned, thereby making it seem unimportant. The (R) and (D) labels make keeping track easy. |
|
|
:YOUR wording ''does'' hide political affiliation. Particularly of Livingston, Barr and Hyde. It does not make clear who was doing what to whom and which party they belonged to. I repeat, it is not only appropriate, but ESSENTIAL that every politician named herein should be clearly identified by party at least once. The current article may confuse younger readers who are not familiar with the subject matter. Use any lanquage you like. richrakh```` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/monica-lewinsky-bill-clinton-never-hooked-oval-office-153847711.html |
|
::Ok. Party affiliations need to be clear, but I agree with AuthorityTam that the "(D)", "(R)" construction was not working, nor was having Clinton's affiliation so prominently placed in the first sentence - it is only relevant in terms of how the impeachment and trial votes went down. I had made some changes regarding party affiliations before seeing this exchange on Talk and I have further changed the text making the party affiliations clearer, and recasting the impeachment section so that it's not a double negative ("voted for acquittal" is clearer than "voted against conviction"). I think this should take care of the concerns of both Authority Tam and richrakh. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 07:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{blockquote|text=So where did it happen? “He a private personal office that is off to the side that consists of a back study, a dining room, a little pantry and a bathroom. That’s where every intimate encounter took place.”}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If this is correct, the article should include this information, because I think it is popularly believed, correctly or not, that “Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office.” The introduction to the article should provide enough information so that a reader knows what parts of that statement are or aren’t correct. |
|
:Works for me. richrakh```` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
] (]) 04:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
Isn't "smoking gun" a little over the top when referring to Lewinsky's dress? Did Clinton shoot someone? Sure, metaphor can be useful, but really? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Category:Political sex scandals in the United States == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page should be added to the category ] (]) 23:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
How about instead of "smoking gun" says something like: 'the dress linked Clinton to Lewinsky in an unambiguous manner'? |
|
|
== JIMBO WALES SUCKS OFF DANIEL BRANDT == |
|
|
I'm just stating facts people.--~~1~~ |
|
Re : -"Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) US Representative, voted to impeach Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal while he himself, was having a long-term affair with his chief of staff, Jennifer Laptook. (2003" - what does the "(2003)" reference here? 84.13.36.104 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that the over-coverage claims need some more recent citations. These are all from the early 2000s and (I know this is OR territory here) attitudes towards scandals like this - particularly where one is in a position of power like Clinton - has shifted significantly since then in the US. More recent criticism seems to be on the nature of the coverage, not the over-coverage per se. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I reviewed the other requests for moving this article, but it seems to me that this has never been discussed: Why is Lewinsky´s name in the title of this article? For me, this very much looks like victim blaming - because that is what she was: the victim in all of this. Perpetrator is definitely Bill Clinton, and maybe others - but Lewinsky? I cannot find anything in the article that suggest that she was part of the scandal - she had sex with a co-worker, which in itself is no concern of anyone. The scandal is about how Clinton behaved in the aftermath - but not how Lewinsky behaved. I dont know what the right title for this page would be, but would argue that the name "Lewinsky" should not be part of it.--Schreibvieh (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to explain this article to my Taiwanese girlfriend who was unfamiliar with it and noticed that this article is extraordinarily unclear about what actually happened. The popular understanding, which has no doubt influenced many Americans’ personal relationships one way or another, is “Clinton got a blowjob in the oral office.” The type of sex act performed is also central to Clinton’s famous statements about the definition of “sexual relations.” But the word “blowjob” is nowhere in the article and “oral sex” does not appear in the introduction nor under “Allegations of sexual contact,” and only under “perjury charges,” where it is implied but not directly stated that Clinton received oral sex.
If this is correct, the article should include this information, because I think it is popularly believed, correctly or not, that “Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office.” The introduction to the article should provide enough information so that a reader knows what parts of that statement are or aren’t correct.
