| Revision as of 18:56, 7 June 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:00, 31 December 2024 edit undoQuicoleJR (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers15,062 edits Pretty major scandal.Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
| (11 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
|
{{afd-merged-from|I did not have sexual relations with that woman|I did not have sexual relations with that woman|11 July 2009}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|I did not have sexual relations with that woman|I did not have sexual relations with that woman|11 July 2009}} |
|
{{On this day|date1=2004-08-17|oldid1=9955998|date2=2004-12-19|oldid2=8742503|date3=2005-12-19|oldid3=31949203|date4=2006-12-19|oldid4=95048557|date5=2012-01-26|oldid5=473259063|date6=2012-08-17|oldid6=507875002|date7=2015-08-17|oldid7=676253223|date8=2018-01-26|oldid8=822369139}} |
|
{{On this day|date1=2004-08-17|oldid1=9955998|date2=2004-12-19|oldid2=8742503|date3=2005-12-19|oldid3=31949203|date4=2006-12-19|oldid4=95048557|date5=2012-01-26|oldid5=473259063|date6=2012-08-17|oldid6=507875002|date7=2015-08-17|oldid7=676253223|date8=2018-01-26|oldid8=822369139}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|collapsed=yes|listas=Lewinsky scandal|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|class=b|living=yes |listas= Lewinsky scandal}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women|class=b}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=b|importance=low|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=b|importance=mid|American=yes|American-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=yes|American-importance=high}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Old moves |
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
| collapse=yes |
|
|title1=Lewinsky scandal |
|
|
|
| title1=Lewinsky scandal |
|
|title2=Clintogate |
|
|
|
| title2=Clintogate |
|
|list= |
|
|
|
| list= |
|
* RM, Lewinsky scandal → ?, '''no consensus/withdrawn''', 15 February 2008, ] |
|
* RM, Lewinsky scandal → ?, '''no consensus/withdrawn''', 15 February 2008, ] |
|
* RM, Lewinsky scandal → ?, '''moved''' to '''Clinton–Lewinsky scandal''', 3 December 2017, ] |
|
* RM, Lewinsky scandal → ?, '''moved''' to '''Clinton–Lewinsky scandal''', 3 December 2017, ] |
|
* RM, Lewinsky scandal → Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, '''procedural close''', 11 December 2017, ] |
|
* RM, Lewinsky scandal → Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, '''procedural close''', 11 December 2017, ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(365d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Clinton–Lewinsky scandal/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 2 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
== 2003 ? == |
|
|
Re : -"Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) US Representative, voted to impeach Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal while he himself, was having a long-term affair with his chief of staff, Jennifer Laptook. (2003" - what does the "(2003)" reference here? ] (]) 20:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|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. ''''']''''' <small>19:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Over-coverage claims == |
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=true}} |
|
|
Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 00:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC) – ''''']'''''<small> ] </small> <small>19:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that the over-coverage claims need some more recent citations. These are all from the early 2000s and (I know this is OR territory here) attitudes towards scandals like this - particularly where one is in a position of power like Clinton - has shifted significantly since then in the US. More recent criticism seems to be on the nature of the coverage, not the over-coverage per se. —] (]) 16:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
: ]ly this from the lead (there wasn't any elaboration on this in the body of the article anyway, and the lead shouldn't include info that's not in the article prose). −] (]) 09:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Why is the name of Monica Lewinsky in the title of this article? == |
|
== 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. ] (]) 01:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC) |
|
I reviewed the other requests for moving this article, but it seems to me that this has never been discussed: Why is Lewinsky´s name in the title of this article? For me, this very much looks like victim blaming - because that is what she was: the victim in all of this. Perpetrator is definitely Bill Clinton, and maybe others - but Lewinsky? I cannot find anything in the article that suggest that she was part of the scandal - she had sex with a co-worker, which in itself is no concern of anyone. The scandal is about how Clinton behaved in the aftermath - but not how Lewinsky behaved. I dont know what the right title for this page would be, but would argue that the name "Lewinsky" should not be part of it.--] (]) 09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
: How did a private extra-marital affair become a political scandal? ] (]) 19:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:: If one is the President of the U.S., there are no "private adulteries."] (]) 18:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Agree. Propose renaming to "the Clinton Scandal" as is the preferred nomenclature (, etc) and as is also . ] (]) 14:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
== 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
== 9/11 Commission what? == |
|
|
Why is the 9/11 commission mentioned in the "Denial and subsequent admission" section? Is this a typo? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: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. ] (]) 14:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Article is extraordinarily unclear == |
|
== Requested move 3 December 2017 == |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was trying to explain this article to my Taiwanese girlfriend who was unfamiliar with it and noticed that this article is extraordinarily unclear about what actually happened. The popular understanding, which has no doubt influenced many Americans’ personal relationships one way or another, is “Clinton got a blowjob in the oral office.” The type of sex act performed is also central to Clinton’s famous statements about the definition of “sexual relations.” But the word “blowjob” is nowhere in the article and “oral sex” does not appear in the introduction nor under “Allegations of sexual contact,” and only under “perjury charges,” where it is implied but not directly stated that Clinton received oral sex. |
|
The result of the move request was: ''']''' to ]. 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 Misplaced Pages; however there is precedent in {{cat|Sex scandals}}. Happy Holidays to All''!'' <small>(])</small> ''''']'''''<small> ] </small> 18:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → ? – Which is a proper title? ] (]) 18:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC) <small>--'''''Relisting.''''' ] ] 13:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)</small> <small>--'''''Relisting.''''' ] (]) 03:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I found this article where Lewinsky claims that the sexual acts in question didn’t actually occur in the Oval Office: |
|
: '''Comment''': I found this article has many redirect pages , so I put them here for reference. ] (]) 18:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
* 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. ''']'''] 18:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
** {{ping|Old Naval Rooftops}}, do you have an opinion on "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal"? ] ] 18:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*** I believe that to be an acceptable title. ''']'''] 14:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''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 ]. It looks like the last RM discussion occurred back in 2008 (]), and it appears that many who commented there felt that we should keep "Lewinsky scandal" as the ]. 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) 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". ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
** '''Reply 2''': {{reply|Zzyzx11}} Oh, My fault for not discovering such moving request of this page has been requested/discussed before (now archived). ] (]) 20:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' ] or ]. The longer form, ], would also be acceptable.] <small>]</small> 22:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' unless there's a consensus to merge to ], this is the best name I can think of, and none of the suggestions above are better IMO. ] (], ]) 06:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''': I'm not sure why there would be any confusion with this title. It seems like the ] 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 ]. And any kind of hyphenated "Clinton-Lewinsky" name is probably far less common than either name alone. --] (]) 12:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Speedy close''' Move request presents no rationale whatsoever.<sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 21:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support moving to "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal"'''. More descriptive and accurate (yet still concise) title. ] (]) 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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. ] ] 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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. ] (]) 00:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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. ] (]) 21:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Actually, 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
**In case it was not clear, i still support the move per my statements above. Also would support merge to ]. ] (]) 21:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support moving to "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal"''' per comments above. —<span style="font-size: 104%; letter-spacing:1.5pt;"><span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran]</span></span> 19:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:<small>Note: relisting following improper closure by a discussion participant. ] ] 13:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
*'''Clinton-Lewinsky''' ]] 13:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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. ] (]) 15:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
**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? ] (]) 20:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::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. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' – per ]. 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". '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 20:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
**How did you determine that ''the Lewinsky scandal'' is the common name of this scandal? ] (]) 20:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Move to ]''', per above, but with an ]. ]] 02:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705074333/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1998/9812.gitlin.obsession.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1998/9812.gitlin.obsession.html |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423232401/http://spectator.org/archives/1998/11/15/slick-billy to http://spectator.org/archives/1998/11/15/slick-billy/ |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223181444/http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3930 to http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3930 |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523132319/http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/people/b/burton_dan/burton.html to http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/people/b/burton_dan/burton.html |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604220456/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/icreport/report/1cover.htm to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/icreport/report/1cover.htm |
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/monica-lewinsky-bill-clinton-never-hooked-oval-office-153847711.html |
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
{{blockquote|text=So where did it happen? “He a private personal office that is off to the side that consists of a back study, a dining room, a little pantry and a bathroom. That’s where every intimate encounter took place.”}} |
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 20:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC) – ''''']'''''<small> ] </small> <small>20:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If this is correct, the article should include this information, because I think it is popularly believed, correctly or not, that “Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office.” The introduction to the article should provide enough information so that a reader knows what parts of that statement are or aren’t correct. |
|
== Requested move 11 December 2017 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 04:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
{{collapse top|Collapsing discussion started after improper closure of previous discussion ] ] 13:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)}} |
|
|
] → {{no redirect|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. <small>] (])</small> 14:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Mentioned above=== |
|
|
{{collapse top|Collapsing cherry-picked comments from previous RM which should have no bearing on the result of this discussion. ] (]) 11:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)}} |
|
|
*'''Support''' ] or ]. The longer form, ], would also be acceptable.] <small>]</small> 22:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Support the form ]''' and echo the remarks {19:27, 5 December 2017 and 02:17, 12 December 2017) by bd2412, below.] <small>]</small> 07:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support moving to "Clinton–Lewinsky scandal"'''. More descriptive and accurate (yet still concise) title. ] (]) 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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. ] ] 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
** {{ping|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. ] ] 02:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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. ] (]) 21:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support moving to "Clinton-Lewinsky scandal"''' per comments above. —<span style="font-size: 104%; letter-spacing:1.5pt;"><span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran]</span></span> 19:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
: {{ping|Roman Spinner|Bonewah|Usernamekiran}} Pinging other participants whose previous comments have been copied here. ] ] 02:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===New opinions=== |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- add new opinions here --> |
|
|
* <s>'''Close nomination immediately: Discussion rigged.'''</s> The nominator ] 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? --] (]) 09:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*: I'm fine with continuing the RM discussion now that admin Jenks24 has collapsed the consensus-rigging to prevent that from getting counted. Thanks! --] (]) 12:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: 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. ] ] 13:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: On second thought, the non-admin closure by a participant in the previous discussion is itself improper. I am undoing that closure. ] ] 13:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
*: 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. <small>] (])</small> 14:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== video == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 22:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
== "Blue dress" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Please participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 13:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== angus == |
|
|
|
|
|
angus <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Clinton–Lewinsky scandal|answered=yes}} |
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 21:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
: {{done}}. ] <small>(])</small> 01:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ms./Miss == |
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton said: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". Note "Miss" and not "Ms.". ] (]) 02:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 2003 ? == |
|
|
Re : -"Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) US Representative, voted to impeach Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal while he himself, was having a long-term affair with his chief of staff, Jennifer Laptook. (2003" - what does the "(2003)" reference here? ] (]) 20:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Over-coverage claims == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think that the over-coverage claims need some more recent citations. These are all from the early 2000s and (I know this is OR territory here) attitudes towards scandals like this - particularly where one is in a position of power like Clinton - has shifted significantly since then in the US. More recent criticism seems to be on the nature of the coverage, not the over-coverage per se. —] (]) 16:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
: ]ly this from the lead (there wasn't any elaboration on this in the body of the article anyway, and the lead shouldn't include info that's not in the article prose). −] (]) 09:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
Re : -"Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) US Representative, voted to impeach Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal while he himself, was having a long-term affair with his chief of staff, Jennifer Laptook. (2003" - what does the "(2003)" reference here? 84.13.36.104 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that the over-coverage claims need some more recent citations. These are all from the early 2000s and (I know this is OR territory here) attitudes towards scandals like this - particularly where one is in a position of power like Clinton - has shifted significantly since then in the US. More recent criticism seems to be on the nature of the coverage, not the over-coverage per se. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I reviewed the other requests for moving this article, but it seems to me that this has never been discussed: Why is Lewinsky´s name in the title of this article? For me, this very much looks like victim blaming - because that is what she was: the victim in all of this. Perpetrator is definitely Bill Clinton, and maybe others - but Lewinsky? I cannot find anything in the article that suggest that she was part of the scandal - she had sex with a co-worker, which in itself is no concern of anyone. The scandal is about how Clinton behaved in the aftermath - but not how Lewinsky behaved. I dont know what the right title for this page would be, but would argue that the name "Lewinsky" should not be part of it.--Schreibvieh (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to explain this article to my Taiwanese girlfriend who was unfamiliar with it and noticed that this article is extraordinarily unclear about what actually happened. The popular understanding, which has no doubt influenced many Americans’ personal relationships one way or another, is “Clinton got a blowjob in the oral office.” The type of sex act performed is also central to Clinton’s famous statements about the definition of “sexual relations.” But the word “blowjob” is nowhere in the article and “oral sex” does not appear in the introduction nor under “Allegations of sexual contact,” and only under “perjury charges,” where it is implied but not directly stated that Clinton received oral sex.
If this is correct, the article should include this information, because I think it is popularly believed, correctly or not, that “Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office.” The introduction to the article should provide enough information so that a reader knows what parts of that statement are or aren’t correct.
