Misplaced Pages

Talk:Clinton–Lewinsky scandal

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AFreshStart (talk | contribs) at 09:00, 17 February 2022 (→Over-coverage claims: noted removal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:00, 17 February 2022 by AFreshStart (talk | contribs) (→Over-coverage claims: noted removal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2
I did not have sexual relations with that woman was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 July 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Clinton–Lewinsky scandal. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 17, 2004, December 19, 2004, December 19, 2005, December 19, 2006, January 26, 2012, August 17, 2012, August 17, 2015, and January 26, 2018.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidents Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • RM, Lewinsky scandal → ?, no consensus/withdrawn, 15 February 2008, discussion
  • RM, Lewinsky scandal → ?, moved to Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, 3 December 2017, discussion
  • RM, Lewinsky scandal → Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, procedural close, 11 December 2017, discussion

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:

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

checkY 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. —Talk to my owner:Online 00:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth    19:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages; however there is precedent in Category:Sex scandals. Happy Holidays to All! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth    18:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)
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 17:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: relisting following improper closure by a discussion participant. bd2412 T 13:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Clinton-Lewinsky Red Slash 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. 79.65.126.84 (talk) 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? Bonewah (talk) 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. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 17:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
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 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.

checkY 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    20:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2017

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

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)

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

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)
    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)
    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)
    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)

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)

"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 13:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

angus

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

This edit request 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.


Jasonkwe (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 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.". 86.21.234.75 (talk) 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? 84.13.36.104 (talk) 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. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly removed 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). −AFreshStart (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Categories: