Talk:Troopergate (Bill Clinton)

Need for article

The content of that article _is_ entirely a subset of the Jones article. There's nothing unique there. Further, "troopergate" is only of any note _because_ of the Jones lawsuit. Or am I missing something? Do you have any reasonably substantive material to add to that article which is not in the Jones article. As best I can tell, "troopergate" was simply a magazine article by Brock until Jones. Derex 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ^{moved from user talk:Asbl}

The whole point about the Troopergate article is that there were these 4 Arkansas state troopers who were upset that Clinton did not take them with him to DC when he won the presidencey. They therefore made up all kind al salacious stories, all but Paula Jones proved false. The article might probably needs to be expanded (I've added a little bit not), but it is not a subset of Paula Jones. Troopergate spawned Paula Jones, in the same manner that Linda Tripp spawned the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. --Asbl 11:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

no i understand that. i meant the content was a subset of jones, and the notability is because of jones. chronology is not necessarily the best organizational structure. however, if there's more useful stuff for an expansion here, that's fine expand away. Derex 17:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont think troopergate became notable only for Jones (and by extension Lewinsky, as Jones would have gone nowhere if it was not for Lewinsky -- remember, the case was thrown out of court). Even prior to the Lewinsky, Troopergate created an image in the mind of the public of Clinton as a womanizer. I dont think Lewinsky would have gone as far as it did if it were not for that perception. --Asbl 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete and merge

This article should be merged into the PAula Jones article. Apparently "troopergate" is a term that is only being used in a NY tabloid. This doesn't merit another article, and the term should not be used by Wikipedia to describe this. Wikipedia is not the place to showcase novel neologisms. csloat (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

'Troopergate' term now being used in New York newspapers

Articles are appearing in New York newspapers using the same term. Here are links:

• Michael Goodwin: "It's time to call in the feds" (Page 33 of 12/19/2007 Daily News

website: "http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/11/26/2007-11-26_gov_spitzer_to_confront_unhappy_democrat.html?page=1

• Spitzer to release Troopergate transcript

website: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/12/13/2007-12-13_spitzer_to_release_troopergate_transcrip-1.html

• Let's hear it from Spitzer

website: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/13/2007-12-13_lets_hear_it_from_spitzer.html

• All over but the testimony

website: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/12/2007-12-12_all_over_but_the_testimony-1.html

• Gov. Spitzer ripped for state plane use

website: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/12/2007-12-12_gov_spitzer_ripped_for_state_plane_use.html

• DA hits Gov. Spitzer's office with new subpoena in Troopergate scandal

website: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/columnists/benjamin/

• Elizabeth Benjamin (Discussing 'Troopergate' on page 2 of her opinion page:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/11/26/2007-11-26_gov_spitzer_to_confront_unhappy_democrat.html?page=1

I don't know if or should these headlines be incorporated into this page or not. Comments to me would be appreciated, thank you.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

The current title violates NPOV.

Since the article is unlikely to be deleted, I propose renaming Troopergate (Bill Clinton) to 1994 Paula Jones alleged affair or move it to a background section about the Jones v. Clinton case.[1] This is because only tabloids used the name and publications such as the NY Times used the term only in quotes. The term originates from The American Spectator to sell its conservative magazines/attack Clinton[2], and thus is not NPOV per Wikipedia:Naming conflict.

This renamemerge will be similiar with the other usages of the "Troopergate" name, such as Troopergate (Sarah Palin) redirecting to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal or Attorneygate redirecting to Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. We66er (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is that "Troopergate" is really what it is known for. Renaming it anything that doesn't include that term is likely to be met with a flood of controversy. Right now, if you asked 100 Americans over 40 "who was involved in Troopergate", the majority would know it was Bill Clinton, instantly. You may be unintentionally underestimating how powerful that term is in the controversy. I am not questioning your motives in this, but it looks like you are trying to "clean" the articles in a politically correct manner, which isn't neutral. I think you have to use the terms that the events are known for. Hell, most people don't even know that Watergate is a hotel in D.C., they just know it is a "Nixon thing". Watergate leads direct to the scandal, not the hotel. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a pejorative title coined by a conservative publication selling an "alleged" scandal. The author of that article who interviewed the troopers and Paula called it "bad journalism" and apologized to Clinton.[3] The title, whether popular or not, is inappropriate. That is the same reason Troopergate (Sarah Palin) redirects to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. Anyway, why doesn't this belong with Jones v. Clinton? The allegations were the formation of the lawsuit, which was thrown out. (We66er) 00:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If you want to compare Watergate scandal to this, people were found guilty and went to prison (Nixon was pardoned) in that scandal. There is no doubt that is was a scandal-- prison, a president resigning, pardons and so on. As for this, when these allegations went to court they were thrown out and later one of the people who made the claims against Clinton was convicted of lying to the FBI. We can trace this whole thing to a conservative publication which was part of the Arkansas Project. Let's focus on this article and avoid making silly comparisons. We66er (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Rebuttal Rather than bounce back and forth, I will just put it out here, let others add their particular view, and if we can't all agree, we can take to Third Opinion. I don't expect to reply to line by line analysis of my reasoning, as it is already fully documented.

1. 1. For the record, this article was nominated at AFD by the same person who has requested a name change, which resulted in a SPEEDY KEEP of the article. It is currently under review with no radical action expected. The article has had peer review as it is, and while it needs work, was found to be a notable topic, as named.
   2. To answer your question: "Anyway, why doesn't this belong with Jones v. Clinton?", that would be beyond the scope of requesting a name change. AFD or a request to merge would be the right forum for that.
   3. Right now I can pull dozens and dozens of news articles that link "clinton" and "troopergate", which means I can verify that the events were collectively known as "Troopergate" in the mainstream media, using reliable sources, thus the term is neutral because it is used universally and not solely by persons attacking him.
   4. It is not usual for alleged scandals to have "-gate" attached to them AND be verifiable by reliable sources. Please see List of scandals with "-gate" suffix for examples.
   5. Please note that there is no wikipedia policy on appropriate, thus it is a non-argument for any action during any procedural discussion.
   6. Changing the title will violate NPOV as it indicates a "cleansing" of the title for reasons that can be described as "political correctness".
   7. Changing may also violate Wikipedia is not censored for the same reason. Quoting from the policy "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." I would say that this applies to titles as well as content. Changing a title solely because it is "inappropriate" (or controversial) would be a form of censorship, particularly when it is in common usage.
   8. Additionally, the policy quoted WP:Naming conflict, it clearly states in the subsection WP:Naming conflict#Article names 2 "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons.", which is what is being proposed.
   9. The following section offers guidance when selecting a name (and supposedly, when proposing a change) that asks Is the name in common usage in English? as a qualifier. Troopergate applies.
   10. The next section sheds more light on the topic, as it gives a description of what can not be used to determine usage, including Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?
   11. It goes on to say Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view, which is what we would be doing in this particular circumstance.
   12. Next we come to the section of description names, which is the section the nominator is using to force a name change. It states: Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications...For instance, a recent political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the George W. Bush administration. This application of the policy is fatally flawed.
   13. In this particular instance, "Troopergate" is used by 3rd parties, and not just those who opposed Bill Clinton. Because every major news outlet used the term (try a search for just ABC news, [4], or some misc picked articles discussing it in general, [5] ,Slate article comparing the TWO Troopergates], and it is easy to see that this is the most common name used by 3rd parties. Discounting all friends and foes, it is still the most popular term used to describe the event by neutral parties. While I am sure the argument is made in good faith, it is flawed because this argument only applies when the sole usage is from an antagonist, and this is clearly not the case in this example. There are many, many more examples from reliable sources that are NOT from tabloids.
   14. Changing the title to 1994 Paula Jones alleged affair doesn't make the title more neutral, and instead make it less neutral, as the title itself implies an affair. At the very least, the new title wouldn't "solve" any neutrality problem, even if it existed.
   15. While I assume good faith, looking at all the actions against this article, I think the nominator is well meaning, but has a bias against the term and is eager to strike it from usage on Wikipedia, using multiple methods, even while admitting it is a popular term. This is evidenced by two different AFDs, a DRV, and this name change request all in the space of a couple of days. This doesn't speak to the validity, only the motivation. Regardless, I feel the reasoning is based upon a misunderstanding of policy here in general (perhaps from being a new editor or just having very strong feelings about the topic), and such a change would actually create an NPOV issue per my arguments above.
   16. I do agree with the nominator that our time would best be spent on improving the article instead of other issues. We only differ in what the other issue are.
   17. In conclusion, I appologize to my fellow editors for this being so long, but the more I looked, the more problems I found with changing the name, and felt it would be better to simply list them at one time, quote the actual policy statements, and be done with it. Again, I have listed my reasons and welcome any input, although I won't debate each point ad nauseum, as they are fully documented and speak for themselves.

PHARMBOY (TALK) 03:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have MOVED the comments without changing any of the content, to preserve my own conversation. Adding comments in the middle of a conversation breaks the numbering and dilutes my own message, and in effect, modifies what I wrote as it is more difficult to read as I intended. Note that I numbered them specifically because it knew it was long, to make it easier to respond at the bottom, without dimenishing anyone's ability to reply nor my own to offer a singular set of reasons. Simple add: "Point 1: reply" when responding, etc. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Read above, there are two other instances in people wanting to rename or merge this. You have accused me of having bad faith right from the beginning. Even the editor who closed the AFD, said he did it too quickly and apologized. Then you were very rude on the DRV and followed me here. STOP Poisoning the well and throwing out Ad hominemS. You say you'rE assuming good faith and start accusing me of things. I only came across this when looking for information on the Palin troopergate.... I don't have "strong feelings about the topic."

The title of this article, came from a conservative magazine that did interviews with the troopers. The article was done for the purpose of attacking Clinton (see Arkansas Project) and the author has apologized. The title is meant to draw parallels with Watergate scandal. It's a pejorative title coined by a conservative publication selling an "alleged" scandal for an agenda. Troopergate, as an article title, fails NPOV. That's why the other Troopergate redirects to other names.

As I first mentioned the press, such as the NY Times uses the term only in quotes. That is because the title is pejorative-- implies a scandal.

The reason why "troopergate" came up in the press after 1994 was because of Clinton v. Jones. Much of this information is on that page, and what's not is relevant since it sets up the history. We66er (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My concern here is WP:NPOV. We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and two others have questioned its title/why it isn't part of the Jones article. We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Above I wrote: "I propose renaming Troopergate (Bill Clinton) to 1994 Paula Jones alleged affair or move it to a background section about the Jones v. Clinton case." Thus, asking "Anyway, why doesn't this belong with Jones v. Clinton?" seems relevant. We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As I first mentioned the press, such as the NY Times uses the term only in quotes. That is because the title is pejorative-- implies a scandal. We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. The other Troopergates don't use troopergate in the article title. We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The following part of WP:TITLE saying when there is an issue use Wikipedia:Naming conflict. We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If changing the title since it's a pejorative title coined by a conservative publication selling an "alleged" scandal for an agenda is politically correct so be it. We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignoratio elenchi. We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How would it be different from the other Troopergate redirects? We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. So let's compromise on something that was made with a political agenda. We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the entire section above is about that. I brought the very issue up in this section with Palin. What's your point? We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

-Gate is pejorative as the original author, David Brock, of "troopergate" intended. "Alleged affair" means alleged affair. It's just my proposal. Feel free to come up with another. We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you assume good faith why poison the well? You didn't assume good faith here. We66er (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging from all your other rude comments, I'd not sure you came to this with an open mind. We66er (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Troopergate is not a good name. Troopergate should be a redirect, or a dab page if multiple uses exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)