Talk:Lewinsky scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lewinsky scandal article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Other Discussion

This page should be locked. Way too much vandalism going on. Just got done restoring the entire page thanks to some loser who thought i'd be cool to replace the entire page with "SHE A HO!!!" Daniel2986 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

oral-anal? Did clinton tossed monica salad or vice versa?

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.

A reminder: This talk page is for discussing the content of the article, not the rightness or wrongness of Clinton's actions and the impeachment trial. GT 23:25, 28 December 2006 (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."


  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"


  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".

"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."

  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.

  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. Pakaran, can you help me understand your addition? Jwrosenzweig 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." Pakaran. 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. :) Jwrosenzweig 18:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Have fun :) Pakaran. 18:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me :) Pakaran. 18:48, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A reminder: This talk page is for discussing the content of the article, not the rightness or wrongness of Clinton's actions and the impeachment trial. GT 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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? Kingturtle 22:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] '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 user:162.33.139.95 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? 172.131.58.54 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. Amorrow 5 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)


[edit] 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, Bob Barr lost because he got thrown into Johnny Isakson's district, Bill McCollum vacated his seat to run for Senate, and Bob Inglis had already done so. None of this can seriously be attributed to "impeachment fallout". Ellsworth 23:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James Rogan (R-CA) lost his seat in 2000 and blamed it on fallout from impeachment (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/06/politics/main247383.shtml)

[edit] Scandal vs. Impeachment

So now we see: It is time to separate the Monica Scandal from the Impeachment. In particular, all non-Monica details of Impeachment should go over to the Impeachment page except for the highest-level facts: Clinton was impeached but he remained in office.

[edit] Redirect

I've reverted the redirect to Monica Lewinsky. This is an inappropriate use of a redirect. If there are some that believe this article is superfluous to the Monica Lewinsky article, the correct action to take is to propose on the talk pages that the articles be merged. If accepted, then the material on this page should be transferred to the other article. Alan Pascoe 20:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image

the image on the top right is no longer available, can anybody fix it? (Image:Clintonlewinskytimecover.jpg TIME magazine's special report.) -Sedimin 09:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe someone deleted all the TIME magazine cover images because they enfringed copyright. Alan Pascoe 20:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impeachment Quotations

I felt that this section cried out for some balance. I tried to find a wide number of applicable quotes, but surprisingly, nearly everywhere I looked Republicans have had the last word on impeachment. If anyone would care to suplement or replace the quotes I've provided feel free.

I feel that 'remarks by the opposition' is a confusing way of describing those who supported and voted for impeachment. While they were technically in opposition to president Clinton on this particular question they were supporters of the action (impeachment). I feel that supporters of impeachment and opponents of impeachment are clearer and more accurate ways of describing impeachment stances.

There should be a balance to this section, and to completely remove the pro-impeachment quotes, while leaving the anti-impeachment quotations doesn't seem correct.

[edit] Cover-Up

Hi, I came to this page specifically looking for what level of cover up there was in the scandal. Clearly Clinton lied, but was there ever any evidence of a large scale cover-up?Questionc 16:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perjury

This may be a bit OT, but it seems a bit strange to me Starr would conclude Clinton commited perjury. Based on this reference which the article mentions, it seems to me that he clearly did not even if he may have been purposely misleading. Clinton was a lawyer of course, so we can assume he clearly knew there was no way in hell he could be guilty of commiting perjury since the rather flawed definition of sexual relations clearly allowed him to do what he did but still say he didn't have sexual relations. Nil Einne 11:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

According to this article, it's a little hard for me to understand why Clinton's testimony(before grand jury on August 17, 1998) was perjury. On that day, he admitted there had been an "improper physical relationship", but there is no more information about his testimony that could be a perjury. plz explain his problematic testimony :) 2SteamClocks 19:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone more skilled than I in english might want to add Non-denial denial somewhere...


[edit] Not quite sure...

I don't think the Supreme Court suspended (or can suspend) Clinton's law license - they did revoke his membership in the Supreme Court Bar (I think there is a separate bar association to argue in front of the Supreme Court).

From this website: http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2001/111301pzor.html

"ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE D-2270 IN THE MATTER OF BILL CLINTON

Bill Clinton, of New York, New York, having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court. The Rule to Show Cause, issued on October 1, 2001, is discharged."

Anyone knowledgeable about this topic, please fill us in.

[edit] Quotations

The Quotation section has clearly taken a huge POV swing. It needed some work before, but as stated above the solution should not have been to remove all pro-impeachment quotes and put three anti-impeachment quotes in. Quoting someone else’s words is not a sneaky way to get in your POV. The quotes are not even in the middle, they clearly accuse the Republican Party of simply playing politics, accuse Kenneth Starr of abuse of office, and the third is at least a bit more mild than the first two. Wanted to open this to discussion but clearly some work needs to be done on this to bring it NPOV.

I added three quotes within the existing quotes. Clearing these are POV pro-impeachment quotes. However, anyone who thought the previous three quotes were appropriate should not take issue with the POV of these quotes. When quoting politicians, it is going to be very difficult to find NPOV material. I suggest we either leave as is, and call it NPOV because it gives equal space to both POV, or scrap the quote section entirely.Inseeisyou 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Trivia section

I added the following:

  • Lewinsky testified to using the cigar sexually and to Clinton then putting it in his mouth and commenting on it.[1] This has led to a lot of tastless jokes about the incident, particularly in the United States.[2]

It is a sad day for wikipedia when the first references added to the infamous Lewinsky scandal, which got international coverage is about the infamous cigar....

Travb (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


I have decided to remove this trivia item because it is clearly not NPOV. First of all, who's to say the jokes are "tasteless." This is a value judgement, not a fact. Presumably, jokes are made about every public figure, so the point that jokes were made about Bill Clinton during the Monika Lewinsky scandal is not in and of itself a notable item. In my opinion, in order for this item to be notable the editor would have to demonstrate that said jokes were significant due to their prominence in the media and/or public awareness, a vague but necessary distinction. Unfortunately, the editor lists a simple google search for "cigar jokes clinton" to support their significance. This is just sloppy work, which fails to support anything in particular.

I have also removed the description of the use of a cigar during the Clinton-Lewinsky sexual encounter. This, in my opinion, is not an item of trivia; it's a fact that may or may not be a notable detail of the affair. If a preponderance of editors feel this to be a notable item, I would insist that it be included in the body of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.214.219 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Perjury? Nope.

I know that there are a lot of conservatives out there who hate Bill Clinton with the burning heat of one thousand suns, but when you spread petty and viscious lies on wikipedia you damage the credibility of the entire enterprise. I have changed a few things in the "Perjury" section that were simple, factual errors:

1. Bill Clinton was never charged with perjury in a court of law. He was never convicted of perjury in any court of law or anywhere else. He was held in contempt of court in July of 1999 after it became obvious that he had been deceptive, evasive, and dishonest. Maybe he should have been charged with perjury, maybe the mob killed JFK, maybe a lot of things, but the bottom line is that Bill Clinton was never convicted of perjury. Period. This is not a complicated issue. Please spend 5 minutes doing a Google search if you are confused about this.

2. He was fined over $90,000 for being held in contempt of court, not $25,000. He also ended up paying almost ten times that in his settlement with Paula Jones (which, ironically, went almost entirely to her lawyers).

3. Hillary Clinton didn't pay his fine: it was paid for out of a legal defense fund supporters raised for him.

I have cited the CNN articles that are my sources and modified the article accordingly. MarkB2 03:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The citation regarding: "With the adducement of further evidence in the case President Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan Webber Wright[2]", but reference [2] offers no "adducement of further evidence". Some other citation is needed for evidence of this point.

75.118.114.53 03:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Dikaios

A definition of "adducement" would be a good idea for non-lawyer readers. And I agree with the last point - the article cited doesn't speak to this. Could the line have been intended to be "Without the adducement of further evidence..."? Tvoz |talk 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the "adducement of further evidence" was meant to refer to all the evidence of Clinton's dishonesty that came out after his deposition (the dress, the tapes, etc). Seeing as that is already mentioned earlier in the article, it is a little redundant redundant. I've excised that part of the paragraph. MarkB2 Chat 13:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life after the affair?

This bit would be very helpful. I'm ignorant in the matter so I can't write anything.--ToyotaPanasonic 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's more appropriate for the article Monica Lewinsky - this is about the scandal, not about her as a person, especially years after the scandal broke. Tvoz |talk 07:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cigar

I am disappointed there was no mention of the Cigar incident. It's the most famous use of a cigar in 100 years and it should be on this page.-G 14:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're "disappointed"? I'm sure you can find the prurient details somewhere. It's trivia - lots of details are not here. As for famous use of cigars in 100 years, try Winston Churchill and Groucho Marx. Tvoz |talk 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No mention of the cigar? That is crazy. This is not an encyclopedic article without this important detail. Please add it. Badagnani (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Timewithbill.jpg

Image:Timewithbill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topic of merging the catch phrase I did not have sexual relations with that woman into this article

I don't feel that this catch phrase should be merged into this article. It is clearly notable enough as a stand-alone article. It just needs to be expanded, seeing as there is more that can be expanded on it. Also, if we're going to have articles on other catch phrases of this nature, as List of political catch phrases shows, then I definitely feel that the article on this catch phrase should be kept, considering that it is one of the most, if not the most notable catch phrase out of all of those. Flyer22 23:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I also do not think it should be merged. Look at Category:Political catch phrases for articles on similar famous political phrases. Wasted Time R 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be merged here. Tvoz |talk 06:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus among editors not to merge. I had originally placed the merge tag, and today I removed it. Having read people's comments, I understand better now the intended difference between an article about the scandal and one about the catch phrase. Hult041956 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to remove the merge tag from the I did not have sexual relations with that woman article. But not to fret, I went ahead and removed that one. Flyer22 01:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Triviality

Why is there not a section on here pointing out how wildly out of proportion this all was blown? He's regarded as a criminal for consensual oral sex, but not for blowing up a pharmaceutical factory and probably killing thousands of people? And that's not to mention everything else he did - or other presidents, past and present. --Jammoe (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starr Report

Starr Report redirects here, but there is little about the report: certainly nothing about the cost or breadth of Starr's investigations. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank God for Republicans

No wonder our country is not taken seriously!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.3.162 (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - our country is not taken seriously because of Republicans? Could be. Please don't use this page as a forum - it's here only to discuss how to improve the article. Tvoz |talk 09:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More content

I think I'm stating the obvious when I say this article should be significantly longer. There is a lot more information on this topic than is written here. Speaking in my own POV, this article is just plain ridiculous. Kellenwright (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] When did the affair start?

Ok, I'm looking for when exactly the affair between Clinton and Lewinsky started. Obviously she went to the White House in 1995, but when did they start... you know. Now, I'll be looking for that myself, but I'm putting this here because the article doesn't mention that and, when I do find it, chances are I won't come back here. 69.220.2.188 (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it being called an "affair" when it was only sex in an office? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus/request withdrawn.

POV issue: Title must be changed

It's pov,ludicrous,inaccurate and sexist to identify this sex scandal solely by the name of the female participant (especially by only using her last name) and omitting the name of the famous man involved from the title. There were two people involved: a man and a woman. The title should be either Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal or preferably Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky Scandal. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate and sexist as it may be, neither of the proposed names are the common name for the scandal. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Scandal names often have unilluminating titles that don't tell you any of the people involved. What does "Whitewater" tell you? "Watergate"? "Teapot Dome"? So you're actually ahead of the game with "Lewinsky scandal". Wasted Time R (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but BILL Clinton-Monica Lewinsky is also common, if not the most common,common name is not policy and says "As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense." If the Iraq War was more commonly called the "Bush War" would this encyclopedia also use that term? Our NPOV policy precludes that title and also this one, I think. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes it would. Iraq War is not a great name, for example, since it only names one of the combatants, unlike Iran-Iraq War or Russo-Japanese War, which name both. But then many war names don't name either, such as Thirty Years' War or War of the Grand Alliance. You want wars named after just one person? First War against Napoleon, Second War against Napoleon, Jugurthine War, Irish Bruce Wars 1315-1318, Desmond Rebellions, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Profumo Affair is maybe the closest analogue, a political sex scandal named after just one person, even though two were involved. Is it fair that in that case, it was named after the political figure, and in this case it's named after the person the political figure was involved in? Maybe not, but those are the common names. More precedence is that the scandals involving Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers and Donna Rice and Elizabeth Ray don't even have separate articles, but instead are included in their BLPs. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Good points. Actually I think that the use of the more famous person's name (as with Profumo) is less pov because the more famous person's name is the reason it's a scandal in the first place. Why isn't this being called the "Bill Clinton Impeachment/Sex Scandal"? Also, are titles bound to the same criteria as article content? Does common name even apply to a title I wonder? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you've never actually read the common name convention, I suggest you go and read the convention before you make a silly comment like "Does common name even apply to a title I wonder?" The name of the scandal is what it is and unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you want to look at it, you aren't going to be able to change that name. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right about the silly question, but I still say there is latitude to use a more encyclopedic title. We don't have to use the most commonly used term. For example, we have an article titled Native Americans in the United States and we do not have one calling that group of people "Indians" even though Indians is the more common term (by a googled 360-1 ratio) and Native Americans in the United States is not a common term at all for that group of people but it is the best encyclopedic term. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The title is encyclopedic in that it is the common name for the scandal... As far as "Indians" goes.. That's probably not the best of examples because Wikipedia is supposed to be a global encyclopedia and the term is also applicable to people from India and because of this, disambiguation is required. So what you end up with is Demographics of India for people in India, Indian Americans for people with ethnic ties to India in the US, and Native Americans in the US to separate Native Americans in the US from the Native Americans in the rest of the Americas. Common name is generally the name that should be used on an article unless disambiguation is required due to something else equally or more common sharing the same name or if another naming convention supersedes the common name. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
"North American Indians" googles up 1.2 million with virtually no ambiguation whereas "Native Americans in the United States" googles up 26,000. "North American Indians" is by far the most common name and even the term Native Americans in the United States could have some ambiguation. The only real point here is that common name usage is not carved in stone and in this case we can at least discuss the merits of using some less common term; especially since we are a global encyclopedia and the current title may not be nearly explanatory enough for people throughout the world who never had the delight of their own media drumming the name Lewinsky into their brains. In other words, the title would likely not indicate to them that the subject matter has anything to do with a U.S. President . Global readers are more likely to know who Bill Clinton is than "Lewinsky". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Round and round we go.. *sigh* WP:RM is that way. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please do that for me? I've shared with you the logic. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ummm.. This is something you need to do yourself. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "Using the most common name is not policy nor carved in stone" - well, it is a naming convention... WP:COMMONNAMES. JPG-GR (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Lewinsky Scandal" looks to be by far the most common (Web/News/Scholar/Book Ghits), followed by "Monica Lewinsky Scandal" a distant second, then "Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal" a long way back in third. "Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky Scandal" is even further down than that. I think current title is term most likely to be searched for, though others can be rediects of course. And for the record, as a 'global reader' I can testify to being well aware of who Monica Lewinsky is. Fatsamsgrandslam (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentShouldn't above topic be part of this "move" discussion? I doubt many will bother to go above to read it, if they even notice it, and it addresses extensively the "most common" argument which is being repeated here. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought that WP:RM required a fresh start section, but looking at it again I may be wrong, so feel free to revert what I did and include the discussion here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is not sexist. It is because the attention is brought to the person that wasn't famous to begin with. Hence, Lewinsky's name is an eponym. The sexism argument is in a whole other ball park. Dumrovii (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's sexist because by only using the woman's name it's implied that she was the one and only sex object. When women are portrayed as a sex object and men are not, that's sexism. If the logic above held, then the Profumo Affair would be the Keeler affair. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you read what I said? The woman's name is used only because it is an eponym. That is the only reason she is famous. You are just using circumstantial evidence to push a feminist agenda. Dumrovii (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Lewinsky Scandal" or "Monica Lewinsky Scandal" are the only names I've ever seen given this incident. Accusations of "sexism" are moronic and a red herring. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Accusations of "red herring" are moronic. Distraction from what? If you've never seen it referred to as the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, then maybe you should read more. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a language reform movement. Mr Grantevans' arguments may be more reasonable than I think them; but they must prevail elsewhere and among others before they do so here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Problem is, Native Americans in the United States, a very un-common nameto have for a title of an important group of people ( American Indians is about 160 times more common), by its very existence, proves that lowly editors right here at Wikipedia can bring titles up to an encyclopedic level. It proves that it does not have to be done elsewhere by other people.If that's language reform, then it's already happening so it's a decision as to whether to be stuck in tabloidic quicksand or joining the bandwagon to a higher level: an encyclopedic level. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Native Americans in the US is an example of the precision guideline. The term "Native American" or "American Indian" can mean several different things, so disambiguation is required. As far as why the editors chose Native Americans in the United States instead of Native American (United States), you're probably looking at a stylistic decision once it was determined that disambiguation was needed. There just isn't anything the Lewinsky scandal is ambiguous with. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"North American Indians" googles up 1.2 million with virtually no ambiguation whereas "Native Americans in the United States" googles up 26,000 as you and I discussed extensively above; so please don't throw out that weak excuse for the inconsistency again. Point is, we are an encyclopedia, not a lowest common denominator "most common and cornpone simple term rules" tabloid. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky Scandal is more "descriptive" than Lewinsky scandal. These vacuous, soundbite, psuedo-policies are starting to sound a lot like quotes from Mao's little red book or other (and worse) rote programs, all of which are trumped by Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And "The Lewinsky scandal was a political-sex scandal emerging from a sexual relationship between United States President Bill Clinton and a then 22-year-old White House intern, Monica Lewinsky." is even more descriptive which is why it's the first sentence of the article. A title should be succinct but clear. "Lewinsky scandal" is precisely that, no policy needed. — AjaxSmack 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Just backing away from the argument for a second, don't you think that "Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky Scandal" is more precise and that the change would have no downside at all? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No it's not. As pointed out above, Monica Lewinsky was involved in only one scandal (this one) and is notable for nothing else. The current title is perfectly precise. Adding Bill Clinton, who was involved in other scandals, doesn't change the precision but adds unnecessary verbiage. — AjaxSmack 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack. Sebisthlm (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment ok, I've removed the NPOV tag and will make note at the move page. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] "Scandal"

The word "scandal" is not a neutral term but to me reflects a bias. Many think it was no big deal that he got oral sex consensually and some even think that it was none of anyone's business.

The above, not to be edited, title discussion does not really deal with the possibility of altering the word "scandal".

Even if Bill had oral sex, etc with Monica, and lied about it, many other allegations that were made at the time(perjury in a criminal proceeding, obstruction of justice)were never proven. The Paula Jones lawsuit was a civil lawsuit that was bankrolled by Clinton adversaries. That is when Bill apparently lied about Monica.

I think "affair" would be a better term.

JonErber (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Scandal is what this was called all throughout the media, whether some see it as neutral or not. Considering all the controversy it caused, it was very much a scandal. People who felt it was his business still considered it scandalous. Flyer22 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HIllary Clinton

Please explain how a comparison of Hillary Clinton's published schedule to Monica Lewinsky's timeline is relevant to the scandal article. No one is claiming any connection, causation, or awareness at the time - this seems to me to be just irrelevant innuendo. Tvoz |talk 03:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's germane to the issue. It shows a level of familial deception that goes beyond what the common accounts normally discuss. Nova SS (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DNA Evidence

Could someone please include a source for the claims of DNA evidence discovered by the court? Preferably this source would not be from a journal or newspaper, but drawn directly from court documents or forensic research documents themselves, if available. If it is a journal or newspaper, ensure that the journalist themselves indicates a source for their information. Thank you!

--BBUCommander (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The usual procedure for something like this is to tag it for sourcing. For purposes of Wikipedia, there is no mandate for using court or forensic documents over 3rd party verified and checked published sources such as you are requesting. Newspapers or magazines are in fact acceptable sources. Please see WP:Cite. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)