Talk:Clinton–Lewinsky scandal/Archive 2

Collaterals

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

Definition of "sexual relations"

I also think the "Perjury" section should point out the legal definition of the term "sexual relations". Clinton was certainly parsing, certainly not telling a whole truth, but he was following the technical, legalese definition of "sexual relations" when he made the denial. That's an important part of the story. (MBVECO) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.218.237 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the suggestion:

Clinton later stated, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where [I] was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies [explicitly listed elsewhere, that is "the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person"]". In other words, Clinton believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations would have included giving oral sex but excluded his receiving oral sex.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something sounds bad in the 2nd paragraph

This is taken from the article (2nd paragraph):

In 1995, Monica Lewinsky, a graduate of Lewis & Clark College, was hired to work as an intern at the White House during Clinton's first term, and began a personal relationship with him later to her friend and Defense department co-worker Linda Tripp, who secretly recorded their telephone conversations.

I think the text in bold is not well written. Since my mother tongue is not English, I leave it for others to work it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.245.86 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

As I mentioned above, court documents and forensic evidence are preferable, but journals and newspapers are fine so long as they cite their sources. Currently the offered source is a dead link - could someone fix it or provide another source? --BBUCommander (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated scandals

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

The additional info about Livingston and the others highlights the trivial nature of the charges and the hypocrisy of the accusers. Gingrich and the "New Republicans" CHOSE to emphasize Christian beliefs and Family values in their sweep of Congress. The fact they were lying at the time is fundamental to this article. True, not every affair since then should be mentioned, but more than one is certainly necessary. richrakh```` Richrakh talk 04:40, 28 May 2010

Highlighting the trivial nature of the charges is not our job. If its in a reliable source, is relevant to this subject (like Livingston) and follows wp:NPOV then we can put it in, otherwise, it has no place. The fact that you think the republicans were lying at the time is immaterial to this article. In my opinion, none of the newly added material should be included. Bonewah (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Rich rakh's newly added material doesn't belong here. I removed it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting BOTH sides of the scandal IS our job. And just how is Bob Livingston's affair (which you have allowed to remain) more relevant than Newt Gingrich's? richrakh````

The Lewinsky scandal DIRECTLY RESULTED in exposing Livingston's scandal, thus Livingston's scandal was COLLATERAL. This article is not the place for a list of UNRELATED scandals. Please stop putting them here.
The unrelated scandals have again been removed. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

But you have concluded that Larry Flynt has a direct bearing on this scandal, which is why the information about Livingston is allowed to remain. Unfortunately, your source reference, the Guardian.Co.UK, is in error. There was more than “one scalp” dug up by Flynt. Congressman Bob Barr as well as Livingston DIRECTLY RESULTED from Flynt’s investigation and if you include one, you must include the other.

In addition Henry Hyde, R-IL, was the CHAIRMAN of the House Judiciary Committee which prosecuted Clinton and should be mentioned as well. Though he survived politically, his affair was also revealed at the time, so he too was COLLATERAL and needs to be included. As you can see, these three and their affairs are DIRECTLY RELATED to the Lewinsky scandal.

Finally, you should read Wikipedia:About. Particularly neutral point of view and comprehensiveness. richrakh````

The Hyde and Barr affairs may possibly be considered "collateral" since they were revealed as a result of Clinton's affair. Yet the other two had no (or little) affect on anything and so can hardly be called "scandals". Still, I left them in. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. richrakh````

Parties

It does not seem appropriate to append a "(D)" or "(R)" label to each and every person mentioned in the article. Plainly, the one place where political party must be mentioned is in stating that Clinton's party was in the minority in Congress at the time. Thus, the article's Impeachment section formerly stated:
In December 1998, Clinton's political party, the Democratic Party, was in the minority in both chambers of Congress. Some Democratic members of Congress, and most in the opposition Republican Party, believed that...
Yet, the same editor (who elsewhere injects labels of "(D)" or "(R)" after names) here prefers that the section not mention Clinton's party and its then-minority status. That editor prefers the wording:
Most Republicans in Congress – who held the majority in both Houses at the time – and some Democrats believed that
While party membership certainly seemed to affect whether a particular politician lined up with or against Clinton, there were many and significant exceptions to that supposition. Of course, party affiliation should not be hidden in the article (which it was not), but neither should it be pretended that impeachment was a clear-cut Democratic vs Republican dichotomy. I've removed the "R" and "D" labels, and reinstated the statement about Clinton's party in the article's Impeachment section . --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have NEVER suggested that Clinton's party not be mentioned. I object to the fact that the political affiliation of everyone else in the article is not mentioned, thereby making it seem unimportant. The (R) and (D) labels make keeping track easy.

YOUR wording does hide political affiliation. Particularly of Livingston, Barr and Hyde. It does not make clear who was doing what to whom and which party they belonged to. I repeat, it is not only appropriate, but ESSENTIAL that every politician named herein should be clearly identified by party at least once. The current article may confuse younger readers who are not familiar with the subject matter. Use any lanquage you like. richrakh````

Ok. Party affiliations need to be clear, but I agree with AuthorityTam that the "(D)", "(R)" construction was not working, nor was having Clinton's affiliation so prominently placed in the first sentence - it is only relevant in terms of how the impeachment and trial votes went down. I had made some changes regarding party affiliations before seeing this exchange on Talk and I have further changed the text making the party affiliations clearer, and recasting the impeachment section so that it's not a double negative ("voted for acquittal" is clearer than "voted against conviction"). I think this should take care of the concerns of both Authority Tam and richrakh. Tvoz/talk 07:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. richrakh````

Isn't "smoking gun" a little over the top when referring to Lewinsky's dress? Did Clinton shoot someone? Sure, metaphor can be useful, but really?

How about instead of "smoking gun" says something like: 'the dress linked Clinton to Lewinsky in an unambiguous manner'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.4.101 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change the title of this

Calling it the Lewinsky scandal seems to be shaming the victim (Monica Lewinsky) and not directing attention to President Clinton. I propose we rename it to something like President Clinton Sex Scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:206:8100:6810:54EA:59CA:63D8:5C2C (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 December 2017

Collapsing discussion started after improper closure of previous discussion bd2412 T 13:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewinsky scandal → Clinton–Lewinsky scandal – "Clinton–Lewinsky scandal" is a more descriptive and accurate (yet still concise) title. As mentioned by others, "as time passes, the less notable person involved will become more and more obscure to new readers." "For people not from that era or not from the US, Lewinsky doesn't mean much. The scandal didn't just involve her; it was Clinton that makes it all noteworthy." Also, if moved, the dash should be this one: "–", per WP's guidelines. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned above

Collapsing cherry-picked comments from previous RM which should have no bearing on the result of this discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support [among the list of existing redirects] Monica Lewinsky scandal or Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. The longer form, Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal, would also be acceptable. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the form Clinton–Lewinsky scandal and echo the remarks {19:27, 5 December 2017 and 02:17, 12 December 2017) by bd2412, below. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving to "Clinton–Lewinsky scandal". More descriptive and accurate (yet still concise) title. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal" per Paintspot. As time passes, the less notable person involved will become more and more obscure to new readers. bd2412 T 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paintspot: Although I agree with this proposal, it is inappropriate to copy the signed comments of editors from a previous discussion in this way. I would recommend against doing this again. You can always inform participants in a previous discussion of a new discussion on that topic, so long as all participants are informed. bd2412 T 02:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal" For people not from that era or not from the US, Lewinsky doesnt mean much. The scandal didnt just involve her, it was Clinton that makes it all noteworthy. Bonewah (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving to "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal" per comments above. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner, Bonewah, and Usernamekiran: Pinging other participants whose previous comments have been copied here. bd2412 T 02:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New opinions

~~Close nomination immediately: Discussion rigged.~~ The nominator User:Paintspot just did a non-admin closure on the previous discussion, opened this one, then copy-pasted (without the contributors' consent) just the opinions that agree with Paintspot. How can that possibly be legitimate? --Closeapple (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with continuing the RM discussion now that admin Jenks24 has collapsed the consensus-rigging to prevent that from getting counted. Thanks! --Closeapple (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not. I think we should speedy close this, let it sit for a while (a few weeks, maybe a month), and then restart it on even footing with no shenanigans. bd2412 T 13:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the non-admin closure by a participant in the previous discussion is itself improper. I am undoing that closure. bd2412 T 13:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah, I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to be harmful in these discussion edits, and I won't do it again. I thoroughly apologize and take responsibility for my actions. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Clinton–Lewinsky scandal. There appears to be a fair consensus in this debate to include Clinton's name in the title, so it is done. This is not common on Wikipedia; however there is precedent in Category:Sex scandals. Happy Holidays to All! (closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 18:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewinsky scandal → ? – Which is a proper title? Dokurrat (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 13:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this article has many redirect pages (Here they are), so I put them here for reference. Dokurrat (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisionally support Monica Lewinsky scandal, if her last name alone is not sufficient. I doubt there would be any other reasonable meaning for the proposed title. ONR (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Old Naval Rooftops:, do you have an opinion on "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal"? bd2412 T 18:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe that to be an acceptable title. ONR (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there an actual proposed title for this RM discussion, or is the OP merely asking a question because there are a lot of redirects pointing to here? The number of redirects should in no way influence the article title, because a subject may have various alternative names, but only one common name. It looks like the last RM discussion occurred back in 2008 (see archived discussion), and it appears that many who commented there felt that we should keep "Lewinsky scandal" as the WP:COMMONNAME. Proposed names like "Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal" or "Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky Scandal" were rejected, apparently because they were too POV and not common names back then. In a similar vein, a title like "President Clinton Sex Scandal" (as an IP suggested days earlier[1]) could also be considered bias/POV and not a common name. For what it's worth, there are news sources that still use "Lewinsky scandal".[2][3][4] Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: @Zzyzx11: Of course I'm seriously asking for a proper title and for moving (or not moving) this article. I thought listing current redirects may help generate some new ideas. And forgive my bad English. Dokurrat (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply 2: @Zzyzx11: Oh, My fault for not discovering such moving request of this page has been requested/discussed before (now archived). Dokurrat (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support [among the list of existing redirects] Monica Lewinsky scandal or Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. The longer form, Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal, would also be acceptable. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless there's a consensus to merge to Impeachment of Bill Clinton, this is the best name I can think of, and none of the suggestions above are better IMO. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm not sure why there would be any confusion with this title. It seems like the WP:COMMONNAME to me. "Monica Lewinsky scandal" seems unnecessarily long; there's only one scandal named after a Lewinsky. And we shouldn't use "Clinton sex scandal" because there are multiple Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. And any kind of hyphenated "Clinton-Lewinsky" name is probably far less common than either name alone. --Closeapple (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Move request presents no rationale whatsoever._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving to "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal". More descriptive and accurate (yet still concise) title. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal" per Paintspot. As time passes, the less notable person involved will become more and more obscure to new readers. bd2412 T 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like these move requests where no clear new title is put forward, the existing one is concise and to the point. PatGallacher (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal" For people not from that era or not from the US, Lewinsky doesnt mean much. The scandal didnt just involve her, it was Clinton that makes it all noteworthy. Bonewah (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, pageview analysis for the last year shows that Lewinsky's article only receives around 50% fewer views than Clinton's and in fact there have been a number of days where Lewinsky's has received more views. Clinton holds more interest for our readers (unsurprising for a former president) but clearly Lewinsky is very much in the public conciousness. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- In case it was not clear, i still support the move per my statements above. Also would support merge to Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Bonewah (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving to "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal" per comments above. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting following improper closure by a discussion participant. bd2412 T 13:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton-Lewinsky Red Slash 13:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as current title is concise and the alternatives are various and not necessarily preferable. Google hits: 400,000 ("Lewinsky scandal"); 298,000 ("Monica Lewinsky scandal"); 30,300 ("Clinton-Lewinsky scandal"). Searching for Clinton Lewinsky scandal (no inverted commas) brings up 769,000 hits including the above and other variants such as "Clinton/Lewinsky affair", "Lewinsky affair", "Clinton/Lewinsky sex scandal", etcetera. Considering this, I believe a near consensus on an alternative title should be reached before requesting any move. 79.65.126.84 (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be saying that there are more hits for "Clinton Lewinsky scandal" (769,000 hits) than for all version of "Lewinsky scandal' put together (400,000 +298,000 = 698,000). Is that an accurate summary of your findings? Edit, or are you pointing out that searching for Clinton Lewinsky scandal without quotes encompasses all of the former? Bonewah (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a search without quotes using the words "Clinton", "Lewinsky" & "scandal" (in any order). This search demonstrates that the subject matter is referred to by a variety of different names. Searching for "Clinton Lewinsky scandal" brings up as many hits as "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal", which is approx 30,000 (i.e. 10% of the hits for the current page title). This article had 102,411 pageviews in the last month so it is not desireable to move the article without firm evidence that it is justified. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – per WP:COMMONNAME. The common name of this scandal is the Lewinsky scandal and the current title is not ambiguous, as it is widely known that Monica Lewinsky was involved in the scandal, with it being known as "lewinskygate". CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 20:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you determine that the Lewinsky scandal is the common name of this scandal? Bonewah (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, per above, but with an en dash. Brad v 02:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lewinsky scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090625224317/http://www.newsweek.com/id/93748 to http://www.newsweek.com/id/93748
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207092012/http://www.apoliticus.com:80/2008/10/top-5-political-quotes-that-defined-presidencies/ to http://www.apoliticus.com/2008/10/top-5-political-quotes-that-defined-presidencies/
- 2nd link was fixed earlier by another editor. Paine 19:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 19:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 5 external links on Lewinsky scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 20:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be better explained.

I don't understand a lot of this stuff. Why did Lewinsky tell this Tripp lady about it? What exactly happened in the court room? All it says is that he denied it, and in spite of the blue dress and other evidence, they failed to convict him. Why? How? Then some judge holds him "in contempt of court": for what action? What did he do that was in contempt of court? It's like there are huge gaps missing from the story here, like it was written by someone who assumes that the reader is already familiar with the case. AnnaGoFast (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How did a private extra-marital affair become a political scandal? Kortoso (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If one is the President of the U.S., there are no "private adulteries."104.169.39.45 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

video

This video is often played in news reports because it is the first time that the whole family is seen publicly after the scandal was admitted. Where in the article could it go?

Victor Grigas (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Blue dress" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Blue dress. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

angus

angus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.142.234 (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Commission what?

Why is the 9/11 commission mentioned in the "Denial and subsequent admission" section? Is this a typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.158.236 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 9/11 commission looked into Clinton's use of military force against Al Queda and determined it was not motivated by a desire to distract from the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal. Bonewah (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

This edit request to Clinton–Lewinsky scandal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Requesting that a minor edit be made to the section concerning the blue dress. The current wording is a bit ambiguous and COULD be interpreted as only saying that the dress would be evidence of the relationship (but doesn't say it WAS tested and shown to have traces of his DNA).

Suggest it be edited to this: She also turned over a semen-stained blue dress (which Linda Tripp had encouraged her to save without dry cleaning) to the Starr investigators. The FBI tested the dress and matched the semen stains to a blood sample from Clinton thereby providing unambiguous DNA evidence that could prove the relationship despite Clinton's official denials.

[Thank you!] Jasonkwe (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ms./Miss

Clinton said: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". Note "Miss" and not "Ms.". 86.21.234.75 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]