Talk:Bill Clinton

Impeachment?

Doesn't there have to be an actual conviction and not just an indictment? As far as I knew, he didn't actually get impeached? Even in the article it mentions that a super majority was not reached. Would someone please verify and clarify this in the article? Otherwise, it's hugely misleading. 2601:1:9280:155:214:85FF:FE15:4B0D (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Impeach", in the context of American politics, simply means to accuse or to charge someone with wrongdoing. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what impeach means in American politics. Bill Clinton was indeed impeached, wherein the legislative body (Congress) formally voted and officially declared him fit for removal from office. However, there's a follow-up process to actually remove the impeached individual from office, and Congress didn't follow up on it, never intending to actually removed him from office. Yet, he was impeached. The accusations themselves weren't an impeachment. Nixon had lots of accusations regarding Watergate, but he wasn't impeached. He resigned before it ever got that far. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Congress The House brings charges, the Senate hears and decides upon the merits of the charges. It's not complicated. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The House of Representatives brings charges. Remember, the House & Senate make up Congress. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yea, was in a bit of a word mix-up there. Fixed. Tarc (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Trivia map that shouldn't be in this kind of article

In my opinion, the map with the legend Countries visited by President Clinton during his terms in office should be deleted. It's meaningless high-school quiz type trivia that does not bring anything to the article. It does not belong to an encyclopedic article on this nature.--Lubiesque (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Typo in 3rd Paragraph

"First" is misspelled: "... the fiurst from the baby boomer generation"

I would have fixed but the page is locked for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.247.177 (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Dustin (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton

There is not yet a WikiProject banner to place on this talk page, but interested page watchers are welcome to join WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to Hillary Rodham Clinton. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

To Bill Clinton page editors and writers...

...his mother, Virginia, doesn't have a Wikipedia page! His poor old mom, who lived to see him in the White House (she died in 1994), who had so many colorful stories told about her that they could fill a book (and probably have), has no page here. I found this out when her non-linked name was removed from Bill Clinton's template. I don't know enough about her to start one, but maybe somebody can consider putting up a Virginia page. Thanks. Randy Kryn 21:06 14 April, 2015 (UTC)

We would need to see reliable sources that support her claim to notability independent of simply being a former president's mother; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. In looking through the bios of William Jefferson Blythe Jr., Roger Clinton Sr., and Jeff Dwire, I'm not really seeing much to justify those articles either. Each of those 3 were last up for deletion in 2008-2009, when notability was much more loosey-goosey than it is now, so each could benefit from a renewed nomination. Tarc (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Tarc; they likely don't have enough to stand on their own. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Begin consideration of moving this page?

Discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request suggests that we ought to disregard search engine numbers and base titling on ‎the most formal usage presented by other encyclopedias and high level biographers. I've looked at some, and so can confidently report that all reference "William Jefferson Clinton," or at least "William J. Clinton." It may conceivably be his preference as well, seeing use in his oaths of office, and many official documents. This in tandem with a jarring inconsistency between the regalness of "Hillary Rodham" against the plainness of "Bill" makes one wonder if to be consistent they ought to be set at the same level of formality, no? Pandeist (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Invoking Bart Simpson...If this isn't a block-worthy example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I'll eat my shorts. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish. Do you not agree that high-level sources universally reference him as "William Jefferson"? It's worth discussing. Pandeist (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No, this is not block-worthy and if I were treated in the same way, I would take offense. All that aside, why not provide actual counter-reasoning? I'm not currently taking a position or saying that I agree with what either of you say, but seriously, invoking WP:POINT just because someone disagrees with you is disruptive in itself. Dustin (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Look -- here, according to Commons, is his own signature as "William J. Clinton" taken from one of his bills signed: .... Pandeist (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So, signatures imply a preferred name? Curious. Can you reconcile your call to rename the Hillary Rodham Clinton article to Hillary Clinton when her signature appears as thus;  ? Tarc (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh sweet Tarc -- the question is all about reconciliation. It is about reconciling the title of this page with the inconsistent special preference given another. Why would we not address William Jefferson as he is universally treated by high level biographers, by several other encyclopedias, and in numerous high-profile situations by his very own hand? I wish to reconcile the disparate segregation of these flipsides to a decades-long pairing. Pandeist (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Only my mistress calls me "sweet", first off. Second, you didn't answer the question, so let's try again;

• "High-level biographers" and his "own hand" go by "William Jefferson Clinton", so you wish his article title to be "William Jefferson Clinton" rather than "Bill Clinton"
• "High-level biographers" and her "own hand" go by "Hillary Rodham Clinton", so you wish her article title to be "Hillary Clinton" rather than "Hillary Rodham Clinton".

Explain the different treatment. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The different treatment is the situation as it stands. If high-level biographies and significant signatures are to be counted above other factors (and search engine numbers discounted) then both articles ought to be at their formal names -- William Jefferson and Hillary Rodham. If the common man's usage is to prevail, then both titles ought to be at their dinner-table names, simply Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Pandeist (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If you propose this here and support a name change there, then that is a blatant hypocrisy that you still refuse to admit. Tarc (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Bill's middle name is "Jefferson". Hillary's middle name is "Diane". Hillary Rodham was Hillary's family name, thus her name, for a long long time, and she had many accomplishments before marrying Bill and changing her name to Hillary Rodham Clinton (reluctantly if what I read is true). So if Rodham is her family name, not her middle name, it's apples and mailboxes, or cuttlefish and oranges. They are two different species of names. p.s. Interesting how the "Clinton" in both their signatures looks extremely alike in some aspects, and different in others, but some strokes are pretty close there. Randy Kryn 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

But the issue is what they are called in high-level biographies, not how they came called that. Insofar as bios toss search engine hits. Pandeist (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support current title Bill is his common name, and the page should be kept at its current title. However, zero harm in discussing it; the discussion is NOT disruptive. pbp 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There's not a proposal yet -- we're yet uncovering the facts!! Pandeist (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The following paragraph contains (potentially helpful and applicable) mockery

Because Encyclopedia Britannica and every other encyclopedia of note uses the article titles "Jimmy Carter," "Bill Clinton," "Hillary Rodham Clinton," "Golda Meir," and "Cristina Fernández de Kirchner," we must not follow their lead. Why not? Because only encyclopedia-makers do those elitist intellectual things like give more weight to certain sources. Those dorky eggheads at Britannica probably give excessive consideration to the names that people use as authors of their own published works, the names that people use in their own autobiographies, the names that people prefer in their encyclopedia entries, and the choices of other encyclopedias. That's the ultimate in intellectual incest. Why can't they just ignore stupid things like books and do a google count to reach decisions like we do? Ideas need to be subordinate to google counts in the 21st century, Britannica! Just learn from us. Our goal should be to remove Britannica's inconsistencies and create a level playing field where nobody receives special preference. The name used in my favorite blog by this smart kid Timothy from five miles down the road should count just the same as an autobiography written by the article's subject. (Yay for Timothy! Nice blog, Timothy! There's one google count for the name used by Timothy! Woo! Autobiography names? You suck!) Some encyclopedias might even take the distinction between men's middle names and women's birth names into account in their decisions. Obviously, real-world encyclopedias have far too many female editors. We don't have to follow their lead. We don't even have to be an encyclopedia at all. We could create something entirely new and finally discard our outdated encyclopedia label entirely by fully embracing a new term for our over-politicized, over-argumentative, mostly male and often obsessive nutjob brand. Removing the intellectual burden of being an encyclopedia from Wikipedia would have a positive impact on donations in the short term, and it would lead to fewer disputes where people have to do all that hard stuff like wear thinking caps. Man, who would want to read this long paragraph? TL;DR, dude. Flying Jazz (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Predicted replies: "uhhh...so you're making fun of the idea because you just don't like it, right?" "Why don't you cite policy?" Flying Jazz (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And would you agree User:Flying Jazz that most high-level biographies (lengthy books at that, of much more substance than Britannica's pages muster) use "William Jefferson Clinton"? I take your screed as endorsing this formal name as used in such sources, and in many encyclopedias as well. Pandeist (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

1. The distinctions among "formal usage," "common man's usage," "plainness," and "regalness" is something you want to discuss for reasons that seem to have nothing to do with encyclopedia-building. Perhaps it's a rhetorical tactic. Maybe it's some misplaced desire for consistency or you have some political agenda. I don't know.
2. My screed gives precedence to the names used in other encyclopedias. For politicians, these tend to be the names used in their autobiographies and memoirs.
3. A high-level biography may use a different name than an autobiography/memoir in order to suit the author or publisher of that biography, not the subject. That's why the biographer's editorial decision about the name isn't relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. It would be relevant to an encyclopedia article about the book.
4. On the other hand, because a naming decision in an autobiography/memoir was made by the subject, that editorial decision does have something to do with the subject and that autobiographer's choice is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject AND ALSO about the book.
5. The counterargument to this way of thinking involves citing times and places when the subject used a different name from the one used in his or her autobiography or memoir. This counterargument misses the unique role of autobiographies/memoirs in encyclopedia-making and bibliography (in the sense of library science). Autobiographies/memoirs inform encyclopedia-makers about how the subject presents his or her name as a simultaneously cited author and subject without the explicit other purposes of campaign literature or signatures.
6. That's why sane encyclopedias weigh autobiographies/memoirs for naming decisions to such a great extent. It's because that name is how the author/subject has cited himself or herself purely as an author/subject.
7. But at Wikipedia, that obvious bibliographically sound dual-role self-citation is merely another opportunity to over-politicize, over-argue, and dehumanize the subject, especially politicians. It's misrepresented by nitwits as something the subject wants for their encyclopedia article or for posterity instead of as a uniquely useful bibliographic resource that can and should also serve as an article name. Of course, at the current Hillary renaming debate, a preference was apparently given to Wikipedia about her article name. But that's not the case here.
8. The policy at WP:COMMONNAME should be tweaked in my view to give additional weight to the names of people as used in the titles of autobiographies/memoirs, if one is available and if a common name is used there. This would give editors an explanation about one reason why "other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful" to reach naming decisions. The more Wikipedia editors understand about encyclopedic decision-making, the less wackiness there will be. After this wackiness is over, maybe I'll try to talk to folks over there about tweaking the policy. But I'm not optimistic about the outcome. Flying Jazz (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)