Talk:Clinton–Lewinsky scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Congressman Livingston

The Collateral Scandal section says Congressman Livingston was expected to become Speaker. I'm pretty sure he was actually speaker-elect, and this should be specifically mentioned, but I don't have a reference. 70.180.119.247 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a speaker-elect? I'd have assumed that with posts like that one would assume office immediately.   Will Beback  talk  06:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Discussion

This page should be locked. Way too much vandalism going on. Just got done restoring the entire page thanks to some loser who thought i'd be cool to replace the entire page with "SHE A HO!!!" Daniel2986 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

oral-anal? Did clinton tossed monica salad or vice versa?

---

I'm also confused, I didn't read the Starr report ... When the article says, "", including oral sex in both directions, "" does this mean, vaginal-anal lingus or does it mean felatio performed on Clinton, cunnilingus performed on Monica? Maybe these technical terms are clearer, yet unoffensive enough for the article. ""both directions"" seems too colloquial.

---

A reminder: This talk page is for discussing the content of the article, not the rightness or wrongness of Clinton's actions and the impeachment trial. GT 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

---

  The article states:

"The issue was greatly confused by an unusual definition for sexual contact that was ordered during the initial questioning which led to the perjury allegations. "Sexual contact" was defined as contact where the man touches the woman for her gratification; no action by the woman for the man's gratification was considered sexual contact."

  This is simply not true, and is completely biased to anyone who has
  followed the case.  This is the core of the definition of sexual
  relations, as stated in the deposition:

"Definition of Sexual Relations For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in “sexual relations” when the person knowingly engages in or causes – 1) contact with the genitalia, arms, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

“Contact” means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing"

  Clinton was asked to respond to the definition as stated in (1).
  You will notice that it does not describe male or female contact,
  but "a person" on "any person".

"Legal opinion is divided as to whether President Clinton's denials--though perhaps ungallant--were legal perjury, though he certainly violated the requirement to be clear about what he was saying. However, legal opinion has been almost unanimous that a criminal prosecution on charges of perjury would almost certainly fail."

  Judge Wright held that Clinton had violated the law, and held him
  in contempt with a fine.  I dunno if that qualifies for being
  "legally unanimous" on charges of perjury.

  John Abbott

---

Is it really a common misconception that Clinton was removed from office? I can't imagine: after all....he was still there through the end. I have never heard it was commonly misunderstood that Clinton was convicted, but that I can see as more plausible. Pakaran, can you help me understand your addition? Jwrosenzweig 18:38, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, it's that I've heard some people saying he wasn't "impeached." He was - he just happened to be (essentially) found innocent. I also see bizarre statements sometimes like "no president has ever been successfully impeached." Pakaran. 18:41, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're coming from. In that case, I think I'll be bold and fiddle with the wording a little. Revert me if you like. :) Jwrosenzweig 18:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Have fun :) Pakaran. 18:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me :) Pakaran. 18:48, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A reminder: This talk page is for discussing the content of the article, not the rightness or wrongness of Clinton's actions and the impeachment trial. GT 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Britney-bashin'

Come on, now: is the reference to Britney Spears really necessary or notable? There isn't even a quote saying that she personally believes this to be the case, and even if there were, why should we have a concurring opinion from Joe Random Celebrity and not a theologian or ethicist or something?

others who fell from grace

during this process, weren't there a few congress people who had to resign from their posts because of impending sexual scandals of their own? what are the details of that? Kingturtle 22:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

International Affairs -- "Some allege..."

Why does this section belong in the article? You can't prove nor disprove that 'wag the dog' was Clinton's real motivation; neither I, you, nor the pundits who made those allegations had any special peek at his thoughts.

Barring any admission by Clinton himself, these allegations are not now nor will they ever be factual. The allegations were never the basis for any punitive action toward Clinton; it's not newsworthy on that basis. It's pure speculation, mostly from people with axes to grind and money to make.

That's why it's called an "allegation." His critics were accusing him of ulterior motives for those military actions, a point that goes to the issue of how the Lewinksy matter may have affected the Clinton Presidency, and even U.S. foreign policy. For that reason, it bears mention, so long as it's made clear that it IS an accusation, not a fact, which the passage clearly does.

'Impeachment' Section NPOV Dispute Discussion

The Impeachment section is NPOV disputed because of the following statements:

• "The charges had been rushed through the House in order to take advantage of the votes of so-called 'lame-duck' Republican congressmen, and did not reflect the recommendations of the Starr Report."

• "Success in the Senate was not anticipated, due to presumed partisans voting if for no other reasons"

• "The charges were reorganized apparently to maximize the opportunities for sensationalism and the humiliation of the President"

The section should be checked for pro-Clinton bias.

unsigned comments by user:162.33.139.95 03:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

"However, legal opinion has been almost unanimous that a criminal prosecution for perjury in such a case would be highly unusual, and would almost certainly fail." Is there a cite for this assertion? Where does it come from? 172.131.58.54 08:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The current writing is:

The charges had been rushed through the House in order to take advantage of
the votes of so-called "lame-duck" Republican congressmen,...

My recommendation: stop looking for simple cause-and-effect in a such a complicated conflict. Just observe. Such as:

The charges were processed through the House quickly and this speed allowed
the "lame-duck" Republican congressmen to participate, ..."

Your mindset should be that of a historian documenting a battle as if he observed it. You know, such as "The soldiers charged. They got the advange and they killed a lot of the enemy, who then routed." Do not ask why the soldiers charged: just observe that they did charge, rather than simply defend or retreat. Amorrow 5 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)

Political impact

Dropped this sentence:

Many of the House Republicans prominent in the prosecution of the impeachment lost their seats in the following election; it is argued by some that this was an expression of voter distaste for the "embarrassing circus" of the impeachment.

Names would be helpful, if this were true, which it isn't - most of the House impeachment managers were in safe seats. Just off-hand, Bob Barr lost because he got thrown into Johnny Isakson's district, Bill McCollum vacated his seat to run for Senate, and Bob Inglis had already done so. None of this can seriously be attributed to "impeachment fallout". Ellsworth 23:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James Rogan (R-CA) lost his seat in 2000 and blamed it on fallout from impeachment (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/06/politics/main247383.shtml)

Scandal vs. Impeachment

So now we see: It is time to separate the Monica Scandal from the Impeachment. In particular, all non-Monica details of Impeachment should go over to the Impeachment page except for the highest-level facts: Clinton was impeached but he remained in office.

Redirect

I've reverted the redirect to Monica Lewinsky. This is an inappropriate use of a redirect. If there are some that believe this article is superfluous to the Monica Lewinsky article, the correct action to take is to propose on the talk pages that the articles be merged. If accepted, then the material on this page should be transferred to the other article. Alan Pascoe 20:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

image

the image on the top right is no longer available, can anybody fix it? (Image:Clintonlewinskytimecover.jpg TIME magazine's special report.) -Sedimin 09:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe someone deleted all the TIME magazine cover images because they enfringed copyright. Alan Pascoe 20:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment Quotations

I felt that this section cried out for some balance. I tried to find a wide number of applicable quotes, but surprisingly, nearly everywhere I looked Republicans have had the last word on impeachment. If anyone would care to suplement or replace the quotes I've provided feel free.

I feel that 'remarks by the opposition' is a confusing way of describing those who supported and voted for impeachment. While they were technically in opposition to president Clinton on this particular question they were supporters of the action (impeachment). I feel that supporters of impeachment and opponents of impeachment are clearer and more accurate ways of describing impeachment stances.

There should be a balance to this section, and to completely remove the pro-impeachment quotes, while leaving the anti-impeachment quotations doesn't seem correct.

Cover-Up

Hi, I came to this page specifically looking for what level of cover up there was in the scandal. Clearly Clinton lied, but was there ever any evidence of a large scale cover-up?Questionc 16:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Perjury

This may be a bit OT, but it seems a bit strange to me Starr would conclude Clinton commited perjury. Based on this reference which the article mentions, it seems to me that he clearly did not even if he may have been purposely misleading. Clinton was a lawyer of course, so we can assume he clearly knew there was no way in hell he could be guilty of commiting perjury since the rather flawed definition of sexual relations clearly allowed him to do what he did but still say he didn't have sexual relations. Nil Einne 11:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

According to this article, it's a little hard for me to understand why Clinton's testimony(before grand jury on August 17, 1998) was perjury. On that day, he admitted there had been an "improper physical relationship", but there is no more information about his testimony that could be a perjury. plz explain his problematic testimony :) 2SteamClocks 19:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone more skilled than I in english might want to add Non-denial denial somewhere...

Not quite sure...

I don't think the Supreme Court suspended (or can suspend) Clinton's law license - they did revoke his membership in the Supreme Court Bar (I think there is a separate bar association to argue in front of the Supreme Court).

From this website: http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2001/111301pzor.html

"ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE D-2270 IN THE MATTER OF BILL CLINTON

Bill Clinton, of New York, New York, having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court. The Rule to Show Cause, issued on October 1, 2001, is discharged."

Anyone knowledgeable about this topic, please fill us in.

Quotations

The Quotation section has clearly taken a huge POV swing. It needed some work before, but as stated above the solution should not have been to remove all pro-impeachment quotes and put three anti-impeachment quotes in. Quoting someone else’s words is not a sneaky way to get in your POV. The quotes are not even in the middle, they clearly accuse the Republican Party of simply playing politics, accuse Kenneth Starr of abuse of office, and the third is at least a bit more mild than the first two. Wanted to open this to discussion but clearly some work needs to be done on this to bring it NPOV.

I added three quotes within the existing quotes. Clearing these are POV pro-impeachment quotes. However, anyone who thought the previous three quotes were appropriate should not take issue with the POV of these quotes. When quoting politicians, it is going to be very difficult to find NPOV material. I suggest we either leave as is, and call it NPOV because it gives equal space to both POV, or scrap the quote section entirely.Inseeisyou 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New Trivia section

I added the following:

Lewinsky testified to using the cigar sexually and to Clinton then putting it in his mouth and commenting on it. This has led to a lot of tastless jokes about the incident, particularly in the United States.

It is a sad day for wikipedia when the first references added to the infamous Lewinsky scandal, which got international coverage is about the infamous cigar....

Travb (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to remove this trivia item because it is clearly not NPOV. First of all, who's to say the jokes are "tasteless." This is a value judgement, not a fact. Presumably, jokes are made about every public figure, so the point that jokes were made about Bill Clinton during the Monika Lewinsky scandal is not in and of itself a notable item. In my opinion, in order for this item to be notable the editor would have to demonstrate that said jokes were significant due to their prominence in the media and/or public awareness, a vague but necessary distinction. Unfortunately, the editor lists a simple google search for "cigar jokes clinton" to support their significance. This is just sloppy work, which fails to support anything in particular.

I have also removed the description of the use of a cigar during the Clinton-Lewinsky sexual encounter. This, in my opinion, is not an item of trivia; it's a fact that may or may not be a notable detail of the affair. If a preponderance of editors feel this to be a notable item, I would insist that it be included in the body of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.214.219 (talk • contribs)

Perjury? Nope.

I know that there are a lot of conservatives out there who hate Bill Clinton with the burning heat of one thousand suns, but when you spread petty and viscious lies on wikipedia you damage the credibility of the entire enterprise. I have changed a few things in the "Perjury" section that were simple, factual errors:

1. Bill Clinton was never charged with perjury in a court of law. He was never convicted of perjury in any court of law or anywhere else. He was held in contempt of court in July of 1999 after it became obvious that he had been deceptive, evasive, and dishonest. Maybe he should have been charged with perjury, maybe the mob killed JFK, maybe a lot of things, but the bottom line is that Bill Clinton was never convicted of perjury. Period. This is not a complicated issue. Please spend 5 minutes doing a Google search if you are confused about this.

2. He was fined over $90,000 for being held in contempt of court, not $25,000. He also ended up paying almost ten times that in his settlement with Paula Jones (which, ironically, went almost entirely to her lawyers).

3. Hillary Clinton didn't pay his fine: it was paid for out of a legal defense fund supporters raised for him.

I have cited the CNN articles that are my sources and modified the article accordingly. MarkB2 03:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The citation regarding: "With the adducement of further evidence in the case President Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan Webber Wright[2]", but reference [2] offers no "adducement of further evidence". Some other citation is needed for evidence of this point.

75.118.114.53 03:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Dikaios

A definition of "adducement" would be a good idea for non-lawyer readers. And I agree with the last point - the article cited doesn't speak to this. Could the line have been intended to be "Without the adducement of further evidence..."? Tvoz |talk 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the "adducement of further evidence" was meant to refer to all the evidence of Clinton's dishonesty that came out after his deposition (the dress, the tapes, etc). Seeing as that is already mentioned earlier in the article, it is a little redundant redundant. I've excised that part of the paragraph. MarkB2 ^Chat 13:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Life after the affair?

This bit would be very helpful. I'm ignorant in the matter so I can't write anything.--ToyotaPanasonic 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's more appropriate for the article Monica Lewinsky - this is about the scandal, not about her as a person, especially years after the scandal broke. Tvoz |talk 07:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cigar

I am disappointed there was no mention of the Cigar incident. It's the most famous use of a cigar in 100 years and it should be on this page.-G 14:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're "disappointed"? I'm sure you can find the prurient details somewhere. It's trivia - lots of details are not here. As for famous use of cigars in 100 years, try Winston Churchill and Groucho Marx. Tvoz |talk 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the cigar? That is crazy. This is not an encyclopedic article without this important detail. Please add it. Badagnani (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Timewithbill.jpg

Image:Timewithbill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Topic of merging the catch phrase I did not have sexual relations with that woman into this article

I don't feel that this catch phrase should be merged into this article. It is clearly notable enough as a stand-alone article. It just needs to be expanded, seeing as there is more that can be expanded on it. Also, if we're going to have articles on other catch phrases of this nature, as List of political catch phrases shows, then I definitely feel that the article on this catch phrase should be kept, considering that it is one of the most, if not the most notable catch phrase out of all of those. Flyer22 23:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I also do not think it should be merged. Look at Category:Political catch phrases for articles on similar famous political phrases. Wasted Time R 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be merged here. Tvoz |talk 06:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus among editors not to merge. I had originally placed the merge tag, and today I removed it. Having read people's comments, I understand better now the intended difference between an article about the scandal and one about the catch phrase. Hult041956 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to remove the merge tag from the I did not have sexual relations with that woman article. But not to fret, I went ahead and removed that one. Flyer22 01:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Starr Report

Starr Report redirects here, but there is little about the report: certainly nothing about the cost or breadth of Starr's investigations. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I think there should be a separate article on the starr report. It seems that wikipedia is reflecting the collective memory of what the Starr report was supposed to be about, rather than how it evolved into being about Lewinsky. I'm working on a sandbox version of one of the players in the Arkansas project; I may use that as a springboard into starting a slightly stubby Starr report, possibly using some of the material from Kenneth Starr to avoid content forks.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

More content

I think I'm stating the obvious when I say this article should be significantly longer. There is a lot more information on this topic than is written here. Speaking in my own POV, this article is just plain ridiculous. Kellenwright (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

When did the affair start?

Ok, I'm looking for when exactly the affair between Clinton and Lewinsky started. Obviously she went to the White House in 1995, but when did they start... you know. Now, I'll be looking for that myself, but I'm putting this here because the article doesn't mention that and, when I do find it, chances are I won't come back here. 69.220.2.188 (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it being called an "affair" when it was only sex in an office? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus/request withdrawn.

POV issue: Title must be changed

It's pov,ludicrous,inaccurate and sexist to identify this sex scandal solely by the name of the female participant (especially by only using her last name) and omitting the name of the famous man involved from the title. There were two people involved: a man and a woman. The title should be either Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal or preferably Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky Scandal. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate and sexist as it may be, neither of the proposed names are the common name for the scandal. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Scandal names often have unilluminating titles that don't tell you any of the people involved. What does "Whitewater" tell you? "Watergate"? "Teapot Dome"? So you're actually ahead of the game with "Lewinsky scandal". Wasted Time R (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but BILL Clinton-Monica Lewinsky is also common, if not the most common,common name is not policy and says "As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense." If the Iraq War was more commonly called the "Bush War" would this encyclopedia also use that term? Our NPOV policy precludes that title and also this one, I think. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would. Iraq War is not a great name, for example, since it only names one of the combatants, unlike Iran-Iraq War or Russo-Japanese War, which name both. But then many war names don't name either, such as Thirty Years' War or War of the Grand Alliance. You want wars named after just one person? First War against Napoleon, Second War against Napoleon, Jugurthine War, Irish Bruce Wars 1315-1318, Desmond Rebellions, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Profumo Affair is maybe the closest analogue, a political sex scandal named after just one person, even though two were involved. Is it fair that in that case, it was named after the political figure, and in this case it's named after the person the political figure was involved in? Maybe not, but those are the common names. More precedence is that the scandals involving Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers and Donna Rice and Elizabeth Ray don't even have separate articles, but instead are included in their BLPs. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good points. Actually I think that the use of the more famous person's name (as with Profumo) is less pov because the more famous person's name is the reason it's a scandal in the first place. Why isn't this being called the "Bill Clinton Impeachment/Sex Scandal"? Also, are titles bound to the same criteria as article content? Does common name even apply to a title I wonder? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you've never actually read the common name convention, I suggest you go and read the convention before you make a silly comment like "Does common name even apply to a title I wonder?" The name of the scandal is what it is and unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you want to look at it, you aren't going to be able to change that name. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about the silly question, but I still say there is latitude to use a more encyclopedic title. We don't have to use the most commonly used term. For example, we have an article titled Native Americans in the United States and we do not have one calling that group of people "Indians" even though Indians is the more common term (by a googled 360-1 ratio) and Native Americans in the United States is not a common term at all for that group of people but it is the best encyclopedic term. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The title is encyclopedic in that it is the common name for the scandal... As far as "Indians" goes.. That's probably not the best of examples because Wikipedia is supposed to be a global encyclopedia and the term is also applicable to people from India and because of this, disambiguation is required. So what you end up with is Demographics of India for people in India, Indian Americans for people with ethnic ties to India in the US, and Native Americans in the US to separate Native Americans in the US from the Native Americans in the rest of the Americas. Common name is generally the name that should be used on an article unless disambiguation is required due to something else equally or more common sharing the same name or if another naming convention supersedes the common name. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"North American Indians" googles up 1.2 million with virtually no ambiguation whereas "Native Americans in the United States" googles up 26,000. "North American Indians" is by far the most common name and even the term Native Americans in the United States could have some ambiguation. The only real point here is that common name usage is not carved in stone and in this case we can at least discuss the merits of using some less common term; especially since we are a global encyclopedia and the current title may not be nearly explanatory enough for people throughout the world who never had the delight of their own media drumming the name Lewinsky into their brains. In other words, the title would likely not indicate to them that the subject matter has anything to do with a U.S. President . Global readers are more likely to know who Bill Clinton is than "Lewinsky". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Round and round we go.. *sigh* WP:RM is that way. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please do that for me? I've shared with you the logic. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm.. This is something you need to do yourself. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Regarding your "global readers" point, what do you propose the Teapot Dome scandal, Watergate scandal, and Whitewater controversy articles be renamed to? Their titles do not indicate a connection to a U.S. president either. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Using the most common name is not policy nor carved in stone" - well, it is a naming convention... WP:COMMONNAMES. JPG-GR (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Lewinsky Scandal" looks to be by far the most common (Web/News/Scholar/Book Ghits), followed by "Monica Lewinsky Scandal" a distant second, then "Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal" a long way back in third. "Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky Scandal" is even further down than that. I think current title is term most likely to be searched for, though others can be rediects of course. And for the record, as a 'global reader' I can testify to being well aware of who Monica Lewinsky is. Fatsamsgrandslam (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• CommentShouldn't above topic be part of this "move" discussion? I doubt many will bother to go above to read it, if they even notice it, and it addresses extensively the "most common" argument which is being repeated here. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that WP:RM required a fresh start section, but looking at it again I may be wrong, so feel free to revert what I did and include the discussion here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is not sexist. It is because the attention is brought to the person that wasn't famous to begin with. Hence, Lewinsky's name is an eponym. The sexism argument is in a whole other ball park. Dumrovii (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's sexist because by only using the woman's name it's implied that she was the one and only sex object. When women are portrayed as a sex object and men are not, that's sexism. If the logic above held, then the Profumo Affair would be the Keeler affair. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Did you read what I said? The woman's name is used only because it is an eponym. That is the only reason she is famous. You are just using circumstantial evidence to push a feminist agenda. Dumrovii (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose "Lewinsky Scandal" or "Monica Lewinsky Scandal" are the only names I've ever seen given this incident. Accusations of "sexism" are moronic and a red herring. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Accusations of "red herring" are moronic. Distraction from what? If you've never seen it referred to as the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, then maybe you should read more. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a language reform movement. Mr Grantevans' arguments may be more reasonable than I think them; but they must prevail elsewhere and among others before they do so here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Problem is, Native Americans in the United States, a very un-common nameto have for a title of an important group of people ( American Indians is about 160 times more common), by its very existence, proves that lowly editors right here at Wikipedia can bring titles up to an encyclopedic level. It proves that it does not have to be done elsewhere by other people.If that's language reform, then it's already happening so it's a decision as to whether to be stuck in tabloidic quicksand or joining the bandwagon to a higher level: an encyclopedic level. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans in the US is an example of the precision guideline. The term "Native American" or "American Indian" can mean several different things, so disambiguation is required. As far as why the editors chose Native Americans in the United States instead of Native American (United States), you're probably looking at a stylistic decision once it was determined that disambiguation was needed. There just isn't anything the Lewinsky scandal is ambiguous with. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"North American Indians" googles up 1.2 million with virtually no ambiguation whereas "Native Americans in the United States" googles up 26,000 as you and I discussed extensively above; so please don't throw out that weak excuse for the inconsistency again. Point is, we are an encyclopedia, not a lowest common denominator "most common and cornpone simple term rules" tabloid. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Yes, other stuff exists, but take up Native Americans in the United States at that article's talk page and I might support a move. Otherwise, keep this article here per WP:COMMONNAME. — AjaxSmack 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky Scandal is more "descriptive" than Lewinsky scandal. These vacuous, soundbite, psuedo-policies are starting to sound a lot like quotes from Mao's little red book or other (and worse) rote programs, all of which are trumped by Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And "The Lewinsky scandal was a political-sex scandal emerging from a sexual relationship between United States President Bill Clinton and a then 22-year-old White House intern, Monica Lewinsky." is even more descriptive which is why it's the first sentence of the article. A title should be succinct but clear. "Lewinsky scandal" is precisely that, no policy needed. — AjaxSmack 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just backing away from the argument for a second, don't you think that "Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky Scandal" is more precise and that the change would have no downside at all? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. As pointed out above, Monica Lewinsky was involved in only one scandal (this one) and is notable for nothing else. The current title is perfectly precise. Adding Bill Clinton, who was involved in other scandals, doesn't change the precision but adds unnecessary verbiage. — AjaxSmack 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per AjaxSmack. Sebisthlm (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment ok, I've removed the NPOV tag and will make note at the move page. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Scandal"

The word "scandal" is not a neutral term but to me reflects a bias. Many think it was no big deal that he got oral sex consensually and some even think that it was none of anyone's business.

The above, not to be edited, title discussion does not really deal with the possibility of altering the word "scandal".

Even if Bill had oral sex, etc with Monica, and lied about it, many other allegations that were made at the time(perjury in a criminal proceeding, obstruction of justice)were never proven. The Paula Jones lawsuit was a civil lawsuit that was bankrolled by Clinton adversaries. That is when Bill apparently lied about Monica.

I think "affair" would be a better term.

JonErber (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Scandal is what this was called all throughout the media, whether some see it as neutral or not. Considering all the controversy it caused, it was very much a scandal. People who felt it was his business still considered it scandalous. Flyer22 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

HIllary Clinton

Please explain how a comparison of Hillary Clinton's published schedule to Monica Lewinsky's timeline is relevant to the scandal article. No one is claiming any connection, causation, or awareness at the time - this seems to me to be just irrelevant innuendo. Tvoz |talk 03:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's germane to the issue. It shows a level of familial deception that goes beyond what the common accounts normally discuss. Nova SS (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

DNA Evidence

Could someone please include a source for the claims of DNA evidence discovered by the court? Preferably this source would not be from a journal or newspaper, but drawn directly from court documents or forensic research documents themselves, if available. If it is a journal or newspaper, ensure that the journalist themselves indicates a source for their information. Thank you!

--BBUCommander (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The usual procedure for something like this is to tag it for sourcing. For purposes of Wikipedia, there is no mandate for using court or forensic documents over 3rd party verified and checked published sources such as you are requesting. Newspapers or magazines are in fact acceptable sources. Please see WP:Cite. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual contact

Is this really necessary? You are lucky this isn't me... Regardless of my status in the U.S.A., you don't have the right to those private matters. Adultery is not illegal in all states...216.124.224.116 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Tvoz/talk 05:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Whitewater - Starr - Paula Jones connection

After a decade, my memories have dimmed but some points still seem significant (for example, the entire scandal would never have happened if this Democratic President had cleared the White House of known Republicans like Linda Tripp). For me one of the most intriguing points of the Lewinsky scandal was the extremely tangential way that a prosecutor charged with investigating Whitewater came instead to investigate events that happened more than a decade later, involving none of the Whitewater principals (according to the Whitewater controversy article, "Clinton was a passive investor in the venture"). The Whitewater controversy article contains Wikipedia's only reference to the Whitewater - Paula Jones - Lewinsky chain of events: "[L]ongtime Clinton friend and advisor Vernon Jordan had both tried to find Monica Lewinsky a job after her removal from White House internship and tried to help Webster Hubbell financially with consulting contracts while he was under pressure to cooperate with the Whitewater investigations.[26] Indeed it was on this one basis that Starr had taken on the Lewinsky investigation under the umbrella of the Whitewater Independent Counsel mandate in the first place." Whether the two quoted sentences are true or complete I don't know, but the "Lewinsky scandal" article should fully explicate the chain of events leading from Whitewater to Paula Jones to Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky. The explication should include the procedural details best understood by attorneys and an explanation for laypersons of their significance.Ccerf (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge (Monica Lewinsky with Lewinsky scandal)

In researching something apart from this particular topic, I came across stumbled upon the Monica Lewinksy article and noticed that it was tagged with a merge template to this article. I didn't see the particular section on this talk page, so I'm starting that section. The merge template was posted citing the WP:BLP1E section of policy. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 03:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• It appears that the merge tag was placed in late February 2009
• What comes to mind initially is the coverage of her relationship with Linda Tripp. I feel there was coverage of Monica beyond the "one event" that would support her BLP.

Support

1. Support Why have two articles about a person who is pretty well branded for only doing essentially one thing?
2. Support wp:BIO1E states "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident" No clearer case exists than this. ML is known for no other thing then her involvement with the former president, I see no reason to have 2 seperate articles. Bonewah (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Minor event"? I don't think the event that lead to the impeachment, trial and acquittal of a President can be called a minor event. Perhaps it should have been treated as such, but it was instead a major media and political event. Tvoz/talk 04:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think she was covered in greater detail than just the single event. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 03:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose She wasn't born, involved in this scandal, and then died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCommunityWave (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose The logic of the nomination - that she was a figure in a "minor event" - is seriously flawed. This was in no way a minor event, once the press and the opposition party got a hold of the story. It lead to a President's impeachment, trial and acquittal, and was treated as anything but minor. And the article about her overlaps, but has other information that doesn't belong in the scandal article. There is sufficient interest to warrant both articles in my opinion. Tvoz/talk 05:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? What sufficient interest? What information exists in the other article that is really encyclopedic? And I hasten to add that all the things that you name, the impeachment, the media treatment, etc, is all covered here in the scandal article, what is in the Lewinsky article that isnt, or couldnt be covered here? Further, everything about wp:BIO1E points toward not covering the individual actors, consider " The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." Monica Lewinsky would be totally unknown were it not for her role in this affair, what does detailing the particulars of her life add to wikipedia? Bonewah (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Page move: "Lewinsky scandal" -> "Clintogate"

I have never heard the term "Clintogate" used. Is there any evidence that it is the most common term used for this scandal? I don't see any discussion of the move.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked Google and it finds only nine uses of this term, which is an extremely small number. I'm going to go ahead and move it back pending a consensus for the new name.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry.--TheCommunityWave (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy charge

The passage about a conspiracy charge was deleted, with the motivation that it gives WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe conspiracy theory. I restored the text and wrote in the edit summary that "King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is not a fringe person. The passage is short. If popular culture merits a section, this certainly does". Since my edit has been reverted, I would like to ask you to respond to my arguments. --Jonund (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that King (prince at the time) Abdullah was of that opinion, however, it is still the opinion of one man. See wp:UNDUE "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. " and "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Bonewah (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Abdullah, however, was no private person but represented his nation, and if he were about to reveal what he termed "intelligence", he can be expected to have discussed it with other senior officials in Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, wp:UNDUE should be seen in its context, as part of wp:Neutral Point of View#Achieving neutrality. Its rationale is to avoid making fringe theories seem more prominent than they are. In this case, the note of the conspiracy charge hardly serves to make it seem more plausible than it is. --Jonund (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not a formal statement, and it's certainly a fringe theory. Prominent people can believe fringe things. We also don't know if it was just a joke.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for using only formal statements. Abdullah is no rogue who blurts out anything; he can be trusted to mean what he says. To speculate that it may have been a joke is far-fetched. If it were, Indyk could be expected to have understood that and indicated it.

Whether it's a fringe theory is not interesting in this context, as I argued in the second paragraph of my previous post. In the article about Mossad, the fringe aspect would, however, be relevant. --Jonund (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful if you could find an additional source that repeats the claims offered. Its not that i dont believe Indyk, but that is the sort of quote you would expect to hear in more than one place, if it really occurred. Bonewah (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that this is fringe and the weight given is inappropriate for this article. And Bonewah is right that the sourcing is quite weak, and in any case it's just an opinion that may have been expressed which went nowhere. Also, seems to be just one editor favoring inclusion at present, and several expressing doubts, so I think the section should stay out unless some consensus in favor of it is reached. Jonund, please don't edit war - let's see what other editors thinkTvoz/talk 20:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done some more research and found that the conspiracy theory is much more widely believed in the Arab world than I was aware of. P. R. Kumaraswamy gives an overview in the Middle East Quarterly. This means that we have to add some information.

As to the claims by Indyk, I think we can't excpect to find other first-hand sources, since few people heard the claim (we don't know whether Abdullah in fact mentioned his "intelligence" to the senators as he had intended, and how many and who those senators were). But the new information about how widely believed the charge is in the Arab word perhaps adds some plausibility to the incident.

I reverted because nobody answered my arguments. I'm a bit taken aback by Tvoz's post, since she doesn't seem to have understood my explanation of fringe theories and undue weight, and gives me the impression of being inclined to count votes. Anyway, I hope we will agree now about inclusion. --Jonund (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Id still like to see better sourcing that Abdullah actually said all that stuff. If we accept that wp:fringe doesnt apply here because the person making the statement is famous, then you still have to prove that the statement was really made. Proving that other middle easterners may hold the same belief doesnt help, or puts us back into fringe territory. Bonewah (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have as good a source as we could wish. Martin Indyk is a top diplomat and scholar. His book is published by a leading publishing house (Simon & Schuster). He is definitely a reliable source. There is no rule that says remarkable statements have to be confirmed by more than one source, if that source is good enough. Introducing such a rule would have far-reaching consequences for WP. --Jonund (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

←Jonund, I understood your posts, I just did not agree with them. And I am not counting votes, I am noting that you are out there alone with the opinion that this fringe, speculative material should be included here, and you do not have consensus from the editors here that it should be added. I suggest you ask for an RFC to see what other editors think - at this point your research is not compelling to me and no one has weighed in with agreement to your position. Tvoz/talk 21:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you understand my arguments, why did you ignore them? I gave my arguments, waited for four days and checked that all involved editors had been active on WP, so they had an opportunity to interact. Since there were no reactions, I drew the conclusion that nobody objected. As far as I can see, I did everything correctly. I don’t understand why you accused me of edit warring. And doesn’t “noting that you are out there alone with the opinion” which nobody had rebutted look a bit like counting votes? That’s how I saw it, anyway.

It’s no fringe theory (as I first thought it was), since most Middle Eastern commentators have expressed belief in a Jewish or Zionist conspiracy. We have to see the issue from a global perspective. The theory may be outlandish, but that’s not the same as fringe.

I will ask for an RfC, and hope we will have a fruitful discussion. --Jonund (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC Conspiracy charge

Are the conspiracy charges a fringe theory, and if so, does it justify exclusion of the section?[1] --Jonund (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The original dispute was over a reported comment by a Saudi diplomat. I felt that was given far too much weight and should not have been in the article. However, given that editors have come up with RS saying that such an idea was not uncommon in the Arab media, it's not WP:UNDUE to include it, so long as it does not get overlong.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC Comment:Inclusion in an article, whether fringe or not, is all about reliable sources. What are the sources for this conspiracy theory? Can you give links or provide a list here?-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the disputed section, with sources de-wikified.

Conspiracy charge

Throughout the Middle East, the Lewinsky scandal was interpreted as part of a Zionist or Israeli conspiracy. For instance, a Syrian daily portrayed Lewinsky as a bomb planted in the White House that "Israel could explode at the appropriate moment." P. R. Kumaraswamy sums up the attitudes: "On the whole, Arab and Persian media see the Lewinsky controversy as proof of the Zionist control over the United States".Source: P. R. Kumaraswamy: Monica Lewinsky in Middle Eastern Eyes Middle East Quarterly,

Martin Indyk relates that, at a 1998 White House meeting with political dignitaries, Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told President Clinton that Monica Lewinsky was Jewish, and alleged that she had acted on behalf of Mossad in order to bring down the president because of his support for the Palestinians. Abdullah told Clinton that he intended to reveal the "intelligence" to the senators that he was to meet later the same day.Source: Martin Indyk: Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East, Simon & Schuster, 2009. ISBN 9781416594291

I have notified the reliable sources noticeboard about this RfC.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Include. The sources are reliable and the section is complete without being overlong. Cla68 (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Exclude This writing is not really being presented as a fringe theory but rather an explanation of how the scandal was viewed by some people in the Middle East. It would be wrong to present it as a fringe theory because it had no following outside the Middle East and in particular not in the US, unlike 911 truthers. On the other hand the article does not contain any section about international reaction. If it did the conspiratorial views of a minority of people in the Middle East would be a minor detail. So it does not seem appropriate for inclusion. However, it is an interesting story. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Perhaps the article needs a whole section on international reaction.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a minority of people in the Middle East, it's the mainstream opinion in the region (a region that plays a major role in American foreign policy). That makes it a significant aspect. --Jonund (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The article says: On the whole, Arab and Persian media see the Lewinsky controversy as proof of the Zionist control over the United States. It does not say that they believe the whole thing was set up by Mossad with Lewinsky as a conspirator. I question whether the author's main assertion is properly supported, since he gives only two examples in footnote 59. But even if it was, it is just a Middle East twist on the mainstream view outside the US that the prosecution of Clinton was politically motivated. Again, the article does not mention international opinion on the scandal, so there is no reason to include the Middle East. However, if you want to write one including how Clinton received a standing ovation from world leaders when he was acquitted then Middle Eastern views would be acceptable for inclusion. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The section does not say Arabs think "the whole thing was set up by Mossad with Lewinsky as a conspirator", it notes that they saw it as "part of a Zionist or Israeli conspiracy". An operation planned in Israel (note 53 and 54) is only one version of that view. The unnamed participants who used Lewinsky as some kind of agent (n. 61) may be another. A version documented in many sources sees the affair as a tool that the Zionists are able to conduct in order to exercise might in the U.S.

I think the conspiracy charge has an inherent interest that is higher than the expected reactions of sympathy and condemnation. But Clinton's reception at the U.N. strikes me as a telling expression of sympathy and is worthy of inclusion. --Jonund (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The belief that Clinton's opponents were pursuing the case for political reasons rather than a concern for justice, whether or not it is true, is widespread. The Zionist/Mossad theory merely reflects a ME view that Israel plays a conspiratorial role in American politics. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Attributing the case to Jews and claiming that they have the power to stage the affair is quite different from believing that the Senate allowed political motives to influence, or control, its acts. --Jonund (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) The article does not say that they thought the case was staged, just that Clinton's opponents took advantage of it. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, most sources cited didn't say that they thought Ms. Lewinsky was an Israeli agent, but that the Jews had the power to orchestrate a campaign against Clinton and thus influence U.S. policy. That's what I had in mind, although my wording became misleading. --Jonund (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people in the Middle East overstate the influence of Zionism in American politics, equate American Jews with Zionism and overstate the indfluence of Jewish individuals in American politics. I do not see why this opinion is notable in relation to this article when viewpoints from around the world are omitted. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The affair gave nourishment to a certain paranoia (Jewish might), and at the same time highlighted how prevalent that was. It also led to very peculiar interpretations (Lewinsky as agent), which was promulgated by at least three printed sources and by the Saudi crown prince. --Jonund (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

merger proposal

I propose that the contents of Monica Lewinsky be merged to this article, on the grounds that Lewinsky is only known for her internship at the white house. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

See above - no consensus was received to make this change. Tvoz/talk 06:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that discussion is still ongoing, if you want to add your opinion to it, that would be helpful. Bonewah (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we take this to AfD, or open an RFC, for wider input? Ohconfucius (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats up to you, but of the two, I would prefer an RFC. Bonewah (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to delete the pre- and post-scandal bio information about Lewinsky from WP entirely, AfD is the better place (since you're really deleting something). If you want to merge all the pre- and post-scandal bio information into this article, an RFC is better (since you're not deleting anything, rather moving it around). In either case I will argue strongly against a merger. The magnitude and consequences of the Lewinsky affair far, far exceed the situations WP:BLP1E is intended to cover. Remember that every news channel on U.S. television spent a full year discussing everything about her and everything she ever did. She was one of the most famous people in the country during that time, and probably in many other parts of the world as well. Her name is still immediately recognized and often alluded to. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not being in the states when it happened, I am wondering just what all those details of her were, because there is precious little of that in either her bio or this article. Maybe it's just my ignorance, but it still seems a case of WP:BLP1E. To draw a parallel, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley affected Britain for two years during their killing spree and still remain within the British psyche today, yet their articles have been merged into Moors murders. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) Lewinsky became a celebrity in her own right although that never would have happened without the scandal. Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, and Ana Nicole Smith are all examples of people who achieved continued attention after being known for one event. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Such is the power of the mass media... However, I'm not sure these are particularly good examples of the BLP1E argument applying. In addition, I see 'Joe the Plumber' being more a "media phenomonon", strongly due to the cliché and the caricature, rather than plain old Joe Wurzelbacher! Ohconfucius (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings on this issue and will not comment on an AfD. See what happens. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Christine Keeler has not been merged into Profumo Affair. Other U.S. sex scandal figures such as Paula Jones, Donna Rice, Jessica Hahn, Elizabeth Ray, Rielle Hunter, Fanne Foxe, and Ashley Alexandra Dupré all have their own articles, and Lewinsky was/is more famous than all of them. Taking things to another level of seriousness, not only do presidential assassins have their own articles, but also 15 different failed assassins have their own article. Surely they're all "just known for one thing" as well. On the good side, Tenzing Norgay is just known for one thing too, climbing Mount Everest, but it made him famous around the world; there's no reason to merge his article into Timeline of climbing Mount Everest. Sometimes being famous for just one thing is enough. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers both have their own articles, but they only have one article, not a seperate article for their scandal. I see no reason why we couldnt merge this article into the Monica Lewinsky article and make it consistent with all the other presidential sex scandal articles. All or almost all of the information here is redundant with what can be found in the Lewinsky article and neither are that long, why have two? It really doesnt matter to me if the resulting article is titled Monica Lewinsky or Lewinsky scandal, but I dont see any advantage to having two articles that cover the exact same subject in the exact same detail. Bonewah (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lewinsky scandal article should be a good deal longer than it is; there's a lot more to be said about it, especially regarding media coverage and cultural ramifications. (If it had happened during the Wikipedia era, it would be much longer.) It's on my list of Clinton-related articles to get to someday. The Monica Lewinsky article is about the right length now (I've just added some post-scandal items that were missing). There shouldn't be that much overlap between the two, and to shoehorn all of the scandal narrative into Lewinsky's BLP clearly wouldn't be right. It's again analogous to Christine Keeler and Profumo Affair; neither article is a subset of the other. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see how some of the cultural effects and media coverage would not quite fit in the Monica Lewinsky article, just as some elements of Lewinsky's post scandal life would not quite fit here, but the bulk of both articles covers the exact same material. Frankly I find the unique elements of Monica Lewinsky to be trivial and that is why I support a merger here, but seeing as Clinton's other partners all have their own articles, it seems reasonable to follow that trend. Although it might be a little chunky to shoehorn the scandal narrative into the Lewinsky BLP, I dont agree that it clearly wouldn't be right, just a little awkward. Conversely, alot of the unique information in Lewinsky's BLP is really about the scandal anyway (such as her Barbra Walters interview and her commentary on Clinton's autobiography). As for the wisdom of a merger based on what this article might have looked like, or might look like in the future, i cant really comment, but as it stands now, i see mostly overlap. Bonewah (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've further expanded the Monica Lewinsky article, because I realized it was missing still more post-scandal activities. You may consider this content "trivial" but it's all been reported by mainstream news sources (NYT, BBC, New York magazine, etc) and it's all relevant to the kind of life someone can lead in modern America (or cause to leave America) after getting this level of publicity. As for overlap, given how WP:Summary style works, there is always going to be some between related articles; we're not allowed to make the Lewinsky BLP article's "Scandal" section a link to Lewinsky scandal and nothing else. But at this point I don't see "mostly overlap" between the two articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a ludicrous merge suggestion. This is an encyclopedia. If an event is sufficiently important then an encyclopedia will differentiate between the event and the person that the event is named after. Alfred Dreyfus was the focus of the Dreyfus Affair. Every worthwhile comprehensive encyclopedia will have two articles: one for the man and one for the affair. Dreyfus is an example where the trivial details of a person who was once involved in matters of importance are therefore important by extension. A lot of "overlap" is no reason to merge. Flying Jazz (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's not so ludicrous considering that, as at the moment I made that suggestion, there was precious little substantial biographical material in the Lewinsky article to indicate that she was anything but a WP:BLP1E. So that is the faulty maintenance of this article which should be reproached, not my merger proposal, which in the face of it was perfectly reasonable as I see it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The second impeachment of a President in US history was a direct result of the scandal and the resignation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives was arguably an indirect result. Because of that, the event will be discussed in US History textbooks centuries from now--perhaps not at the high school level but definitely at the undergraduate level--and Lewinsky herself (like Dreyfus) will have an encyclopedia entry centuries from now. WP:BLP1E is clear that "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." The Moore murders were not an apt comparison. I don't mean to imply that you were acting in bad faith or beat a dead horse, but I think there are better solutions for a poor biographical article than suggesting a merge. Your use of the past tense to describe your reasons for the merge suggestion seem to imply that the article has improved to the point where those reasons no longer exist. Congratulations on the recent good work on the Lewinsky article by the editors here. I am removing the merge suggestion. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The blue dress (movie)

I removed and user:DanielVovak readded this line concerning a not yet released movie "The Blue Dress, a low-budget movie about the scandal, starring Paula Jones, began casting in December 2008 and will be filmed in Washington, D.C.[31][32][33][34][35][36]" First off, the movie has yet to be filmed (as of late 2009) so wp:crystal. Secondly, why is this encyclopedic in the first place? A non-existant low budget movie that doesnt even warrant it's own article doesnt warrant mention here. Third, the editor who re-added this tidbit, user:DanielVovak, is almost assuredly the same Daniel Vovak who is producing the movie ref, which I feel is a clear wp:COI. For the those reasons I am re-removing this material. Bonewah (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

References to this movie appear in Time Magazine, Washington Business Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Politico, Washington City Paper, NBC (Washington), and DCist. Bonewah's statement evades inclusion of movie from major media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

All the references say the same thing, though, that the movie hasent actually been made. See wp:crystal. If the movie acutally gets made, then perhaps it should be mentioned here, as it stands, its just a script and some press releases, not even close to notable enough to mention here. Bonewah (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"perhaps" it should be mentioned here?? This movie is definitely going to get made and it will be everywhere when it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Im sure. When it does, we can fully consider its impact on popular culture. Until then, I dont believe it warrants inclusion in this article. Bonewah (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger pieces left out

The I did not have sexual relations with that woman article was merged with this one, as we know. But right now, it excludes this:

The quote has gone on to be widely cited as a meme in popular culture, as well as in politics. It is sometimes referred to as Clinton's "finger wagging" quote because of the style in which the President delivered the statement, the precise tone and speed of his voice being widely imitated. The season 5 episode of Cold Case entitled "That Woman" in which the 1998 murder of a promiscuous teenage girl is investigated, had its title derived from the quote, as well as the opening scenes discussing the sexual behaviour of President Clinton.

In English, demonstratives such as that are not normally used to describe people. They are used almost exclusively for places, living animals, and symbolic animals (e.g., "This is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world."). Use of a demonstrative ("spacial adjective") to describe a child, instead of a name, suggests distancing, thus indicating the speaker may be lying. Bill Clinton's notorious use of "I did not have sex with that woman" indicated a possible prevarication.

The first paragraph needs to be sourced before it is included, though I am not big on including the Cold Case part; it is not as though that is the only show this phrase has impacted. For shows, we should rather mention that it has impacted various ones, and then a few examples. In that case, the Cold Case mention would not be so random. But the second paragraph is sourced, and I feel that it should be included in this article. This is supposed to be a merge, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I am thinking of adding in the left out information (the sourced parts). Thoughts on this before I do so would be appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2