| Revision as of 22:58, 5 July 2005 editAmorrow (talk | contribs)3,307 edits fold back into NPOV discussion← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:00, 31 December 2024 edit undoQuicoleJR (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers15,066 edits Pretty major scandal.Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
| (397 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
== Other Discussion == |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
----- |
|
|
|
{{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}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|collapsed=yes|listas=Lewinsky scandal|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=yes|American-importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
| collapse=yes |
|
|
| title1=Lewinsky scandal |
|
|
| title2=Clintogate |
|
|
| list= |
|
|
* RM, Lewinsky scandal → ?, '''no consensus/withdrawn''', 15 February 2008, ] |
|
|
* RM, Lewinsky scandal → ?, '''moved''' to '''Clinton–Lewinsky scandal''', 3 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 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== 2003 ? == |
|
''An event mentioned in this article is an ]'' |
|
|
|
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) |
|
----- |
|
|
oral-anal? Did clinton tossed monica salad or vice versa? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Over-coverage claims == |
|
----- |
|
|
I'm also confused, I didn't read the Starr report ... When the article says, |
|
|
"", including oral sex in both directions, "" |
|
|
does this mean, vaginal-anal lingus or does it mean felatio performed on Clinton, cunnilingus performed on Monica? Maybe these technical terms are clearer, yet unoffensive enough for the article. ""both directions"" seems too colloquial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? == |
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Agree. Propose renaming to "the Clinton Scandal" as is the preferred nomenclature (, etc) and as is also . ] (]) 14:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
The article states: |
|
|
"The issue was greatly confused by an unusual definition for sexual contact that was ordered during the initial questioning which led to the perjury allegations. "Sexual contact" was defined as contact where the man touches the woman for her gratification; no action by the woman for the man's gratification was considered sexual contact." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Article is extraordinarily unclear == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
This is simply not true, and is completely biased to anyone who has |
|
|
followed the case. This is the core of the definition of sexual |
|
|
relations, as stated in the deposition: |
|
|
"Definition of Sexual Relations |
|
|
For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in “sexual relations” when the person knowingly engages in or causes – |
|
|
1) contact with the genitalia, arms, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Contact” means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I found this article where Lewinsky claims that the sexual acts in question didn’t actually occur in the Oval Office: |
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton was asked to respond to the definition as stated in (1). |
|
|
You will notice that it does not describe male or female contact, |
|
|
but "a person" on "any person". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/monica-lewinsky-bill-clinton-never-hooked-oval-office-153847711.html |
|
"Legal opinion is divided as to whether President Clinton's denials--though perhaps ungallant--were legal perjury, though he certainly violated the requirement to be clear about what he was saying. However, legal opinion has been almost unanimous that a criminal prosecution on charges of perjury would almost certainly fail." |
|
|
|
{{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.”}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
Judge Wright held that Clinton had violated the law, and held him |
|
|
in contempt with a fine. I dunno if that qualifies for being |
|
|
"legally unanimous" on charges of perjury. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 04:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
John Abbott |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
Is it really a common misconception that Clinton was removed from office? I can't imagine: after all....he was still there through the end. I have never heard it was commonly misunderstood that Clinton was convicted, but that I can see as more plausible. ], can you help me understand your addition? ] 18:38, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, it's that I've heard some people saying he wasn't "impeached." He was - he just happened to be (essentially) found innocent. I also see bizarre statements sometimes like "no president has ever been successfully impeached." ]] 18:41, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Okay, I see where you're coming from. In that case, I think I'll '''be bold''' and fiddle with the wording a little. Revert me if you like. :) ] 18:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Have fun :) ]] 18:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Looks good to me :) ]] 18:48, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Britney-bashin' == |
|
|
|
|
|
Come on, now: is the reference to Britney Spears really necessary or notable? There isn't even a quote saying that she personally believes this to be the case, and even if there were, why should we have a concurring opinion from Joe Random Celebrity and not a theologian or ethicist or something? |
|
|
|
|
|
== others who fell from grace == |
|
|
|
|
|
during this process, weren't there a few congress people who had to resign from their posts because of impending sexual scandals of their own? what are the details of that? ] 22:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== International Affairs -- "Some allege..." == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why does this section belong in the article? You can't prove nor disprove that 'wag the dog' was Clinton's real motivation; neither I, you, nor the pundits who made those allegations had any special peek at his thoughts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Barring any admission by Clinton himself, these allegations are not now nor will they ever be factual. The allegations were never the basis for any punitive action toward Clinton; it's not newsworthy on that basis. It's pure speculation, mostly from people with axes to grind and money to make. |
|
|
|
|
|
That's why it's called an "allegation." His critics were accusing him of ulterior motives for those military actions, a point that goes to the issue of how the Lewinksy matter may have affected the Clinton Presidency, and even U.S. foreign policy. For that reason, it bears mention, so long as it's made clear that it IS an accusation, not a fact, which the passage clearly does. |
|
|
|
|
|
== 'Impeachment' Section NPOV Dispute Discussion == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Impeachment section is NPOV disputed because of the following statements: |
|
|
|
|
|
* "The charges had been rushed through the House in order to take advantage of the votes of so-called 'lame-duck' Republican congressmen, and did not reflect the recommendations of the Starr Report." |
|
|
|
|
|
* "Success in the Senate was not anticipated, due to presumed partisans voting if for no other reasons" |
|
|
|
|
|
* "The charges were reorganized apparently to maximize the opportunities for sensationalism and the humiliation of the President" |
|
|
|
|
|
The section should be checked for pro-Clinton bias. |
|
|
|
|
|
''unsigned comments by ]'' 03:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"However, legal opinion has been almost unanimous that a criminal prosecution for perjury in such a case would be highly unusual, and would almost certainly fail." |
|
|
Is there a cite for this assertion? Where does it come from? ] 08:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The current writing is: |
|
|
|
|
|
The charges had been rushed through the House in order to take advantage of |
|
|
the votes of so-called "lame-duck" Republican congressmen,... |
|
|
|
|
|
My recommendation: stop looking for simple cause-and-effect in a such a complicated conflict. Just observe. Such as: |
|
|
|
|
|
The charges were processed through the House quickly and this speed allowed |
|
|
the "lame-duck" Republican congressmen to participate, ..." |
|
|
|
|
|
Your mindset should be that of a historian documenting a battle as if he observed it. You know, such as "The soldiers charged. They got the advange and they killed a lot of the enemy, who then routed." Do not ask why the soldiers charged: just observe that they did charge, rather than simply defend or retreat. |
|
|
] 5 July 2005 22:58 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Political impact == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dropped this sentence: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Many of the House Republicans prominent in the prosecution of the impeachment lost their seats in the following election; it is argued by some that this was an expression of voter distaste for the "embarrassing circus" of the impeachment. |
|
|
|
|
|
Names would be helpful, if this were true, which it isn't - most of the House impeachment managers were in safe seats. Just off-hand, ] lost because he got thrown into ]'s district, ] vacated his seat to run for Senate, and ] had already done so. None of this can seriously be attributed to "impeachment fallout". ] 23:22, 18 Jun 2005 (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.
