Jump to content

Talk:Bill Clinton/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. President,
As promised, in honor of your 65th Birthday, I will accept the responsibility and honor of being your reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review tony.--Iankap99 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Iankap99,
I almost always fail GACs when I get to 5 or 6 uncited paragraphs. Each paragraph of a well-structured article is suppose to present a new topic. If any paragraph has no citations a topic is without citation. You may want to skip ahead of me and make sure I don't get to a high total of uncited paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
Good idea--Iankap99 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the phrase "from Yale Law School." should be followed by where they met. However, the text in the body does not support this addendum, making me wonder if it is sufficiently broad. It is my understanding that this is where they met.
I added it, it fits well and it is indeed where they met. This is documented in the Law School Part.--Iankap99 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is began dating = meeting? I ask because I recall seeing some special where he describes the first time he saw her and talks about later dating her.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This may be sufficient given its relative import, but I just thought I recalled more of a story being out there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the lede, including your suggestions and rearranging a little. I sourced the claim that they met at Yale. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember a LEAD is suppose to be structured in 4 paragraphs or less. In this case I think it should be exactly 4 paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great feedback. I have implemented all these suggestions (except WWII, since it's only mentioned as an era, not as a war). – Quadell (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and career
  • "Following Bill's birth, to study nursing, his mother Virginia Dell Cassidy (1923–1994), traveled to New Orleans, leaving Bill in Hope with grandparents, Eldridge and Edith Cassidy, who owned and operated a small grocery store." is a grammatical bear and needs to be split into two sentences.
  • I would refer to Roger Clinton, Sr., using the Sr.
  • "The other was listening to Martin Luther King's 1963 I Have a Dream speech. He also memorized Dr. King's speech." Completely loses the spirit of the source which had causality. The speech inspired the memorization.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and have fixed all these problems. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
College and law school years
  • I would merge the two war draft related paragraphs since the second is a bit short.
  • I am a habitual WP:OVERLINKer, but I would link the following terms: draft, aide and notarized.

*The WP:CAPTION is ungrammatical, suggesting that he ran for election the year he received his degree, which is almost certainly untrue.

Great suggestions. I have implemented them all. – Quadell (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Political career 1978–1992
I've fixed these. But the "slick Willie" sentence seemed trivial, since the nickname is not mentioned elsewhere in the article and it's a phrase in an editorial in a minor paper. So I removed it instead of merging. (Not everything deserves mention in a GA biograhpy.) About the relationships bit, I looked through all 34 members of Clinton's cabinet, and only one (McLarty) lived in Arkansas while the Clintons did. And I can't find any information about them working together or establishing a relationship, besides McLarty deciding not to run against Clinton in his first run as governor. That doesn't seem important enough to mention, to me. – Quadell (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although the term is derogatory, it is not really appropriate to remove it from a 55KB article. We should document its origin since we have a source. It is used in popular media such as NY Times, MSNBC, etc. Look at this headline. It is not you or I calling him this. It is a known nickname and not something we are suppose to whitewash from WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Whitewash" is a little harsh. We're talking about Pine Bluff Commercial, a newspaper that doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. (The Online Edition appears to have been designed back in the Clinton administration, and not updated since.) If the nickname is notable, that's fine, but the "first used" factoid still seems trivial to me. – Quadell (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to a convincing argument to the contrary about WP:BLP related issues or some such however. I can see that Dubya is not in GWBs article, although we know that W. exists. However, we have a source. If the guy who gave him the nickname was a heckler at a town hall or a neighbor, notability of the source is not relevant here. We have a source that is reliable, I think. The consideration here is WP:BLP for important people. If he was a sax player, football player, rapper, or some such, Slick Willie might be in bold in the WP:LEAD. I am very open to BLP arguments. However, the notability of the source is not relevant, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. consider which nickname is most closely associated with him "Slick Willie", "Boy Governor" or "Comeback Kid" and say which should be removed from the article first based on their enduring nature.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No no, it's not a BLP concern. I'm just thinking, if it's the nickname itself that's notable (and not which paper said it first), perhaps it should go in the "Public image" section? I'll try inserting something there, and see what you think. – Quadell (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually hoping that you could teach me a BLP reason why not. Otherwise it seems WP:POV to include his positive nicknames and not his negative one. O.K. so why don't politicians have all their nicknames in the first paragraph and why aren't negative ones included at all like normal people.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grin. Someone as discussed as Clinton is going to have a lot of names. We have "Slick Wille" and "MTV President" (negative, sourced, notable) and "Comeback Kid" (positive, sourced, notable). I don't think "Boy Governor" should stay, as I say below. – Quadell (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have a long history of being pro-nickname and in my last substantive debate was in favor of The Bear Jew being included in the WP:LEAD. I would also be in favor of having "Billary" included in the Presidency of Bill Clinton (said without looking to see if it is).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you aren't dealing with Hurricane Irene today. While you are silent, I have dug up enough on "Boy Governor" to support its inclusion as well: NY Times, Washington Post story devoted to nicknames, Boy Clinton book.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boy Governor is highly legitimized by the second page of the following google search: Clinton "Boy Governor"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No hurricane problems, as of yet. I moved the "Slick Willie" moniker information to the "Public image" section, where I think it fits better. As for "Boy Governor", I'll discuss below. – Quadell (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1992 presidential campaign
  • Due to his youthful appearance, he was often called the "Boy Governor". needs a citation.
    • I'd say it needs to be removed. I did a lot of searching, and it looks totally non-notable to me. (Clinton isn't on the first page of Google results for "Boy Governor", and "Boy Governor" isn't anywhere in the search "Bill Clinton nickname".) I can find a few books that call him "the boy governor", but none that claim it to be relevant (unlike "Slick Willie" and "Comeback Kid"). – Quadell (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed. I'm not saying no one ever called him that; I'm saying it's not a notable nickname. Of the sources you mentioned above, one calls him "Boy Governor of Arkansas" once in a throwaway line in a long book, without mentioning if anyone besides the author called him that or why it was important. (I'd say "Boy Governor of Arkansas" is different than "Boy Governor".) Once source calls him "local boy and boy Governor", without a capital B, which doesn't seem like a nickname. And the other mentions it only to say that the name didn't stick. – Quadell (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you check the google search: Clinton "Boy Governor"? It is mentioned in a lot of books. Saying it didn't stick is a little strong. Once he grew into the role of President it was an anachronism. It would be like saying Little Stevie didn't stick to Stevie Wonder or something. It is more like he outgrew it. No one calls him that anymore. He may forever be Slick Willie as long as he is a smooth talker, but it is no more of a valid nickname.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't say it didn't stick, the source says that, grouping it with other non-notable nicknames such as "Kid Clinton" and "Young Smoothie". I can find reliable sources that say the nickname "Little Stevie" was significant for Stevie Wonder. I can find RSes that say "Slick Willie" was significant in Clinton's life. I can't find any that say "Boy Governor" was ever significant. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Boy Governor" g-tests quite well. It endured well into his tenure as a national politician. Compare google search results of Clinton "Young Smoothie" (non existant), Clinton "Kid Clinton" (spurious) and Clinton "Boy Governor". The latter has many significant results. Time Magazine, MSNBC, NY Times, ESPN, books, and a host of other sources, [1], [2], one source explaining the use of the term. I would mention it as a referent rather than a nickname since it is so often in lower case. It is used as if it is a common term that wikipedia should have an article about and everyone should know. However, it is only use in association with him. I consider it our duty to clarify to the reader the meaning and use of the term.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, you make some good points. Mine isn't the only opinion here that counts, after all. :) In the "Governor of Arkansas" section, I added "Due to his youthful appearance, Clinton was often called the "Boy Governor", a name that stuck through his presidential campaign." with a citation. – Quadell (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that we ARE including it, let's talk about its use. What I think might be more appropriate than "a name that stuck through his presidential campaign" might be something "a referrent that continues to be used to refer to him during his gubernatorial era on occasion". Then I might use three of the many refs (the one there now and two others) I have pointed out above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each Super Bowl has an article. Was this Super Bowl XXVI? Link whichever one it was.
  • "On election night, Clinton labeled himself "The Comeback Kid", earning a firm second-place finish." should probably be "On election night, Clinton labeled himself "The Comeback Kid" for earning a firm second-place finish."
    • Done, and I changed "Clinton labeled himself" to "News outlets labeled him" (since that's what the sources say).
  • Throw Super Tuesday in there wherever it fits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The two paragraphs that detail the meat of the campaign are both stubby and in need of merger or expansion. Since the article is only 52.6KB we have 7.4KB to play with and this is a good section to use expansion capacity. Currently, it is a bit hard to understand the flow of events, but further detail could clear that up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.0% of the vote) against Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist Ross Perot, who ran as an independent (18.9% of the vote) on a platform focusing on domestic issues; a significant part of Clinton's success was Bush's steep decline in public approval." should be moved to the beginning of the next paragraph. That is better sequencing and fills out a stubby paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea, done.
  • "It was the first time this had occurred since the Jimmy Carter presidency in the late 1970s." needs a citation and could use a congress number like 95th United States Congress or whichever one it is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is. Done and sourced.
  • Move the last paragraph for proper sequencing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
Presidency, 1993–2001
  • I think probably we may have gotten overzealous with our reorg. It seems that most modern president's have very distinct Domestic policy sections. Much of the present chronology should be under Domestic policy, but I am not enough of a political expert to say what does and doesn't belong. Which ever is the majority(domestic or non-domestic) of the chronology should stay in place and an other issues section should be created. Maybe everything in the chronology should be domestic policy, but I am not sure. In truth, I am not sure what is left after domestic and foreign policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventually we are going to have to move the quote boxes and images around for effect.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm just about all Clintoned out, after spending around 25 hours on what I naively thought would be a relatively simple improvement. I'm willing to finish up cleaning up the references and performing minor cleanups here and there, but I just don't have it in me for yet another reorg. If it doesn't make GA, I'll totally understand... this article required a lot more work than it appeared at first glance, and I probably would have failed it outright if I had been the reviewer. (I appreciate your patience and work staying with it through all this.) Anyway, I'll do my best shot with this current go, but what I don't get done today I'm just going to have to leave for others. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 7:53 am, Today (UTC−4)
Obama, Dubya and Reagan all have sub artilces for Domestic policy and sections in the bio relating to it. H.W. does not. However, his bio still has a section for this topic with a more general redirect. At some point in the future this article will likely have a specialized article for domestic policy. At that time a reorg here will be mandatory. It would be nice now, but I understand. The article still complies with MOS in strict chrono order.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are still going to have to make the article look good. I always do my image review at the end in part because often when things get moved around, images get squeezed out or added. There will be a reorg of images and an image review. WRT images, We are going to want a bit more alternating of images and an occaissional Template:Multiple image to help do so. See articles like Missouri River and Vince Van Gogh. We are also going to want to reformat quote boxes and move them so that they are not opposite images. See Clint Eastwood.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made a first attempt at it. I'm sure it's better, but I'm not sure if it's right yet. What do you think? – Quadell (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to do an image review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First term, 1993–1997
Second term, 1997–2001
Public opinion
Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Public image
Done. I rearranged this greatly, removing trivia and sectioning allegations of sexual misconduct into its own article, summarizing in this article. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-presidential career
I found no sources claiming financial motivation, so I rewrote the initial sentence to adhere better to the source. I fixed all other concerns here. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honors and accolades
As suggested, I sectioned this into its own article with its own categorization, and merely summarized here. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added info for the pictured award. I'll also do more in the List of honors and awards earned by Bill Clinton later on. But I think all issues about this section of this article are resolved. – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is being Special UN envoy an honorific? Is it like being a US Ambassador? does it deserve a succession box or to be included in honors and awards?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Diplomatic rank#Special envoy, it's just an ad hoc thing without succession. – Quadell (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. so it does not belong in succession boxes. Is it an honor?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tough one. I've been thinking about it a bit. It's certainly an honor to be appointed "Special Envoy", but it's also an honor to be elected governor and president. Those two shouldn't be mentioned in the "Honors and accolades" section. It seems to me that the difference is, governor and president are jobs. They're responsibilities that happen to be honored as well. Whereas there's no responsibility that comes with getting an honorary degree or having a school named after you; it's purely an honor. If that's the important difference, then "Special Envoy" is certainly a job with responsibilities, and belongs in the "Post-presidential career" section (where it is) and not the "Honors and accolades" section. – Quadell (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just stumbled across an issue while fixing redirects. I was contemplating adding {{Redirect|Boy Governor|Governor of the Michigan Territory and the first governor of the State of Michigan|Stevens T. Mason}} here and {{Redirect|The Boy Governor|42nd President of the United States and former Arkansas Governor|Bill Clinton}} there, but I decided to go with {{Redirect2|The Boy Governor|Boy Governor|42nd President of the United States and former Arkansas Governor|Bill Clinton}} there. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where should a "First Black President" redirect point (Clinton or Obama)? Should there be a {{redirect}} hatnote on the other?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think "first black president" was a reference, but not a nickname. I don't think it should rd or dab to Clinton at all, personally. As for Obama, many other countries had black presidents before the U.S. So I'd leave that one alone, personally. – Quadell (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Ah, good, images are more my cup of tea. I'll try to do this today or tomorrow. – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All finished. – Quadell (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I question the organization of parts of the article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    a) The article presents numerous literature references as further reading, but relies on online sources for its text. Much more could be done with traditional primary sources. b) There are places where more citations are needed. c) I do not believe there is any original research in the article although citations are spotty in a few places.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    There are numerous things that might be added but nothing is really too detailed or far removed.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Image review forthcoming
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This article is a challenging responsibility for its editors. In this case the editor is a less frequent Wikipedia contributor than is often the case. I have slowed the pace of my review to give extra response time. Unfortunately, that has not seemed to help. I have been quite thorough in this review, due to the level of importance of the subject. I hope that the article can be improved in response to my detailed concerns. As is standard, I will evaluate progress of this nomination in seven days. The 7-day hold period begins now. Good luck to the nominator and anyone else who might chip in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments on other reviews:

Talk:Bill Clinton/GA1 (November 2008)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive3 (September 2009)
  • The nominator made some initial responses to the extensive PR3 in the first 24 hours but lost steam.
  • Many of that review's issues remain unaddressed, including chronology/organization and stubby paragraphs.
Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive4 (October 2010)
  • Again the nominator (who is the same one as for this review) lost steam.

Overall, I am concerned that this biography is one where nominators who feel fondly of the subject are merely looking for a quick "It looks O.K." response when a lot of work needs to be done. This article will not meet the ever-increasing WP:WIAGA standards without substantial effort.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been unexpectedly busy but, even if this fails I will make the corrections and resubmit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you make the corrections from the PR4 before submitting?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to take over this nomination. It's a long article, so give me a few days. – Quadell (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush. Often, on long reviews I go through several weeks of back and forth. E.G., Talk:Missouri River/GA1 took from 2/9 until 4/6.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am just realizing that you are the same editor that came to the rescue at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/GA1. I am confident that this review is in good hands now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I have now resolved all necessary issues. It's a very long nomination review, however, and I might have missed something. I've now put in far more hours than I ever expected to on this nomination -- it's a tough one! There may still be areas we respectfully disagree on details, but I hope the current version is judged to pass all GA criteria. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on "Honors and accolades" and the references. I think that's all that's left... – Quadell (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now completely overhauled the references. A few egregiously bad refs have been redone. All broken link have been repaired or replaced. Missing date or author information has been supplied where needed, and access dates have been supplied or updated as needed. – Quadell (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"After a failed attempt at health care reform, Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in 1994, for the first time in forty years." — this is something of a misplaced modifier; it wasn't the Republicans' attempt. —Designate (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, fixed. – Quadell (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Two years later, in 1996, " — eh? —Designate (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a little redundant. I suppose we can count on our readers to be able to add 94+2. Removed. – Quadell (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost done

[edit]
Is it time?
  • Chelsea & Mr. President, after the 120,000 birthday responses following the Foundation's appeal that Chelsea voiced so eloquently, I hope my effort here does not get lost in the shuffle. On behalf of all of Wikipedia, we pledge to continue to "improve the lives of others" by making information available to the world. Thanks for asking me to be involved and giving me a chance to demonstrate how wikipedians as public servants can participate in this commitment. I tried to guide the improvement of this article without doing you any favors, sir because that would be a disservice to the world of people who need to be able to learn about you. I apologize that, like any encyclopedia, we are only able to summarize what public domain sources say. Thank you for you leadership and your own efforts to continue to "improve the lives of others" and again, belatedly, Happy Birthday!--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Clinton/GA2&oldid=988143401"