Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.103.114.44 (talk) at 00:22, 5 September 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidents Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance). Past Political Scandals and Controversies (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Past Political Scandals and Controversies, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Past Political Scandals and ControversiesWikipedia:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and ControversiesTemplate:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and ControversiesPast Political Scandals and Controversies

I did not have sexual relations with that woman was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 July 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Clinton–Lewinsky scandal. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 17, 2004, December 19, 2004, December 19, 2005, December 19, 2006, January 26, 2012, and August 17, 2012.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Collaterals

So no one mentions that the press only laxed their coverage once Clinton decided to bomb Afghanistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.102.126 (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "sexual relations"

See also Talk:Lewinsky scandal/Archive 1#Other Discussion.

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.218.237 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added the suggestion:

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 oral sex.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.245.86 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

See also Talk:Lewinsky scandal/Archive 1#DNA Evidence.

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? --BBUCommander (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated scandals

See also Talk:Lewinsky scandal/Archive 1#Congressman Livingston.

This article is about one particular scandal. There were/are/will be others. They need not all be here. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

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```` Richrakh talk 04:40, 28 May 2010

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 wp:NPOV 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. Bonewah (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree that Richrakh's newly added material doesn't belong here. I removed it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2010 (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 Livingston's scandal, thus Livingston's scandal was COLLATERAL. This article is not the place for a list of UNRELATED scandals. Please stop putting them here.
The unrelated scandals have again been removed. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I do not agree, but I concede that Gingrich, et al, may be left out.

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.

Finally, you should read Misplaced Pages:About. Particularly neutral point of view and comprehensiveness. 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. --AuthorityTam (talk) 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 Impeachment section formerly stated:
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...
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:
Most Republicans in Congress – who held the majority in both Houses at the time – and some Democrats believed that
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 Democratic vs Republican dichotomy. I've removed the "R" and "D" labels, and reinstated the statement about Clinton's party in the article's Impeachment section. --AuthorityTam (talk) 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````

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. Tvoz/talk 07:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. richrakh````

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?

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~~

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class United States Presidents articles
• Low-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2012)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2012)