Talk:Monica Lewinsky/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

archive2 2005-aug2008

This page kinda sucks. It doesn't even give the time period when she was an intern in the white house. Basic facts about the story are missing. I'm a democrat looking for information on this and its no fun to see only part of the truth on ANY page of wikipedia. SystemBuilder 03:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Lewinsky currently studies an MSc in Social Philosophy at the London School of Economics.

Other Information

What is she studying? Where? --Gbleem 18:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Lewinsky as slang for oral sex?

This article claims that the word lewinsky is now slang for oral sex? Do enough people use the word in this way to justify including this?

I think most everybody knows that a "lewinsky" is a blowjob. I first heard it on TV.

Actually, at the time it was "a Clinton." Heard it from travellers coming from South America and Europe. Kind of passe, and definitely not Wikipedia material.

I am born in South Africa and now live in Europe and we believe judging other person (Clinton) on his person life is not anyone business. We should see our face in the mirror first before doing that.

  • Thank you for the lecture Mr South Africa, but you should check your facts before drawing judgment on other countries. The reason this issue became public at all is because Clinton decided to commit perjury about Lewinsky during a deposition--which is a legal court proceeding. The issue would not have become so complicated and prolonged had he simply told the truth during the deposition. The vast majority of Americans were opposed to the actions of Ken Starr, and Clinton continued to receive a favorable approval rating from the American public through the end of his presidency, despite the Lewinsky affair. Cbreitel 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard a blowjob being called a Lewinski or a Clinton. So perhaps it is an American thing? Cls14 22:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Lewinsky was sufficiently used as slang that friends and family asked that its use be dropped.
Certainly anyone from South Africa or anywhere else has the right to comment on public figures. Arguably, he has a point, too: After blowing (pardon the pun) $55 million or so on fruitless investigations, Ken Starr decided to investigate the President's sex life. Even as an American, I don't understand why that's anyone's business.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lewinsky-Tripp Lawsuit

Why isn't there any information about the Lewinsky-Tripp lawsuit?

Settlement Amount

I have heard from a not-so-informed friend that Monica Lewinsky obtained $43,000,000 from the civil lawsuit against William J. Clinton? Was my friend inventing facts or is this correct? Can someone explain the pecuniary relief and if she and her lawyers obtained any money, what would the legal basis for it have been? He did not harass or rape her; it was consensual.

--66.81.192.18 04:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your friend is out to lunch on this one. There was no suit between Clinton and Lewinsky. There was one between Clinton and Paula Jones, which was later settled for $850,000. Lewinisky was on the witness list for the Jones case. My thinking is that your friend got confused. - Thanks, Hoshie | 11:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Article

It seems this article has to do more with Clinton than it does with Monica...

I just found it kind of funny that she talks as if they were dating and she got dumped. She blew a married dude and he lied about it so he wouldn't get busted. She sounds like she still has the hots for him.

Apparently, she claims that he made a number of expressions of his affection to her. That is the basis for her claim that it was a "two-way relationship." She claimed to have been very hurt upon reading his version, in which he described their relationship as meaning alot less to him than he led her to believe. I think that rings much more true than your version. When it comes to women, Bill Clinton is a resounding user and cad. I think that has been demonstrated repeatedly.

If anyone has relationship outside marriage. Everyone has right to hide that after all it’s his private life and we are no judge. See yourself in the mirror and answer honestly what you would have done. So i think we also should relax and stop invading private life of others.

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. Heimstern Läufer 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

deletion of probably false claim

I took out the raunchier than usual claim because it has appeared nowhere but in this article. If the person who added it can prove it is in the Start report, that will be news to everyone. Skywriter 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Sources for allegations

Shouldn't there be sources for claims such as monica having more than a passing interest in married faculty while in school?

-tamman2000 07/07/2006

Also, are there sources for the idea that people called it Monicagate? I know the -gate thing has been beaten past death, but did any credible sources apply it to this scandal? --BDD 03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's in the dictionary! http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861679021_1861679021/nextpage.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.35.6 (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's in the dictionary doesn't make it relevant or true. The name is unwieldy and doesn't apply to much else besides this specific issue. I have never heard this term used in relation to the events in question. RegisFrey (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No impeachment

I removed a part of the article that claimed Clinton was impeached because, of course, he wasn't. There was an impeachment trial but he wasn't impeached.Lobot72 02:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment does not mean removal from office. If you go through the "impeachment trial" and remain in office you have still been impeached. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment --Ryan Wise 07:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment means: Innocent till proven guilty. And Clinton was never proven guilty. --Wrong! back to civics for somebody.

Um, if you're going to throw around condescending remarks about "civics", maybe you should check the Wikipedia definition first: Impeachment is "the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to remove a government official without that official's agreement. The second stage is called conviction." It is analogous to an indictment in a criminal trial. Clinton was unquestionably impeached by the House. He was not convicted by the Senate, and therefore, not removed from office.

Impeachment refers to the trial itself, not conviction or removal. Despite a high volume of sources available claiming Clinton was not impeached, this is quite untrue.
This definition from a legal dictionary confirms that impeachment relates to the accusation itself:
"The constitutional process whereby the House of Representatives may "impeach" (accuse of misconduct) high officers of the federal government for trial in the Senate."

A grand jury indicts. The House of Representative impeaches. Same thing. Clinton was impeached. He was not convicted. --Wikismile (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

.

This is from Britannica online:

IMPEACHMENT

Main Entry: 1im·peach Pronunciation: im-'pEch Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English empechen, from Middle French empeechier to hinder, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT 1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office 2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of <impeach the testimony of a witness> 3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct

So, as you can see, to impeach also means (3) to remove from office. In order to prevent this type of misunderstanding, it would be good to express this thing something along the lines of "Clinton underwent an impeachment trial in which he was not convicted". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.1.126 (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We could continue to debate this. Or, we could simply consult the US Constitution, Article Two, Section 4, which states "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and misdemeanors." Clearly, impeachment is separate from conviction. --Wikismile (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Woman?

"Monica Samille Lewinsky (born July 23, 1973 in San Francisco) is an American woman"

doesn't she have a profession or so? just declaring her most notable categorization to be "woman" doesn't seem fair to me.--Wiesengrund 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the bio, she is currently a student, so we could use that occupation if you prefer. -Will Beback 18:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but her not being male doesn't leave many options does it?--80.199.157.114 17:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I today removed a reference that called her an "American whore" --- offensive, totally innapropriate for an encyclopedia, and contrary to Wikipedia policy regarding the biography of a living person ---, and, lacking a better definition, I re-inserted the "American woman" line. Any Wikipedia administrator reading this should, in my view, take steps to block the account of the person who labled Lewinsky a "whore". --189.25.70.118 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(laughing) Gotta love it. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Graduated from LSE

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=peopleNews&storyID=2006-12-20T235110Z_01_N20441569_RTRIDST_0_PEOPLE-LEWINSKY-DEGREE-DC.XML&WTmodLoc=EntNewsPeople_C1_%5bFeed%5d-1 - crz crztalk 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Scandal

I would like to see someone add info about alleged mistreatment to Monica Lewinsky by authorities immediately after the scandal broke out.

Photo of Clintion removed

we don't need Clinton photo on Monica Lewinsky wiki. This photo is appropriate on Monica Lewinsky scandal wiki. This is Monica Lewinsky wiki not Clinton wiki. I have removed it / Hopefloate

job hunting

Link[1]

LONDON - Monica Lewinsky is looking for work in London after getting her master's degree.

"She's job hunting," Lewinsky's publicist Barbara Hutson said Tuesday.

Asked how long Lewinsky planned to stay in Britain, Hutson replied: "Awhile."

The 33-year-old Lewinsky, the woman at the center of the scandal that nearly toppled former President Clinton, graduated from the London School of Economics last month.

Hutson refused to go into further detail or to specify in which discipline Lewinsky had earned her degree.

"She's not doing any press," Hutson said. --Geokaii 02:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Wrong Redirect

What's this? I was looking for the Starr Report a and was automatically redirected to Monica Lewinsky?????

I wanted info on the congressional spending, not a redirect to someones extramarital affairs! is this common US practice????

What for???

Vandalism

I've noticed repeated vandalism of this article while looking at its history (in fact, I reverted some of it myself). Something needs to be done, likely some form of protection.

MegaKN 00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just deleted a sentence stating that she is "famous for giving head" and requesting her phone number. What the hell?71.63.119.49 16:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

the article says "who had an affair with President Clinton." it was never proven that an affair actually took place. I am going to change this.

this article was written unprofessionally. I advise that the article is rewritten using proper and respectful language.

  • But didn't Clinton admit himself to having a sexual affair with her?Hoponpop69 07:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am a Clinton admirer but don't see any way it can be denied that Lewinsky and Clinton had an "affair". Cbreitel 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


  • "However, polls also showed at the time that most Americans where not pleased with the way the Republican-dominated US Congress was handling the situation"...all I can say is WTF? It should be "most Americans WERE not pleased." This is under neutrality because it's just being literate, for crying out loud. Beeswax07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.62.0 (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sex symbol

I don't think it's true that she became a Sex Symbol. Unless older generation of politicians defined it ;) --Tigga en 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Strike-through text== Could someone please remove this from the article (Scandals)==

Done. I wonder what the part I left "both lighthearted and extremely serious at the same time" is supposed to mean. It seems to be self-contradictory. 68.89.149.2 22:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a valid literary device. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


BTW, what happened to the definition of a 'Lewinsky'? Was that considered too salacious?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Marriage

"On December 22nd, 1999 she married longtime boyfriend David R. Stec." This turns up no results on Google. Is this merely vandalism, or is Lewinsky actually married? 172.130.90.171 02:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Scandal

I'm getting a little annoyed at "Brusegadi" - he seems to have appointed himself the guardian of content regarding Monica Lewsinsky without having anything more than a "People Magazine" level of understanding of the sequence of events to which Ms. Lewsinsky's name will be forever linked. While a number of my revisions to this article have (so far) gone through unchallenged, Brusegadi obsesses on the following:


>>>>"The Scandal's Outcomes" The public's fascination with the Lewinsky matter arose almost entirely from the extramarital-oral-sex-in-the-White-House salaciousness at its core. This seemingly bottomless appetite for the latest titillating details embarrassed the United States in the eyes of the world but nevertheless was exploited by Clinton's Republican political opponents to fuel their impeachment of him by the House of Representatives; not so incidently the bottom lines of numerous corporate media outlets were bolstered in the process.

The Gap - the maker of numerous copies of Ms. Lewinsky's little blue dress - reportedly had difficulty keeping up with demand for the dress immediately following the breaking of the scandal in the news.

President Clinton was ultimately acquitted by the Senate on all charges brought there: allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice regarding the affair. The aspects of the President's behavior in the Lewinsky matter that exhonerated him in the eyes of the Senate will never be known conclusively beyond Senators' apparent belief that the charges, and all of the money spent investigating them, were simply unworthy of removing a President from office.

Paula Jones' civil lawsuit against President Clinton, the matter in which President Clinton originally provided testimony that gave rise to his impeachment, was ultimately dismissed.

In the scandal's immediate aftermath Congress chose not to extend the legislation that empowered the driving force behind the investigation of the Lewinsky matter, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

Remaining unaddressed to this day is the dubious wisdom reflected in the US Constitution's allowing of civil suits against a President to proceed while that President is in office thereby forcing him to divert his attention from the business of the American people to that of an allegedly aggrieved and/or, more likely, politically motivated private party.<<<<


I object to Brusegadi's vandalism of my contributions - he needs to supply facts that refute my (irrefutable) remarks if the article as I have revised it is to be anything more than its previous incarnation as a banal exercise in celebrity-worship. The "Lewsinsky Scandal" was significant not because the newspapers endlessly reported its insipid details; it's important because of what it revealed about depths to which political opponents will sink to attack a leader of another party regardless of its consequnces to the country.

I'm not done with my revisions.

Epischedda 08:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)epischedda, October 5, 2007

Sorry, but there are many statements that read like WP:OR. It does not matter if your remarks are irrefutable; the problem is that they are your remarks (your words) and wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. You have two choices. You can either find a source for your remarks or take them out. If you find a source for your remarks that was written by your self then you may have a problem of conflict of interest and it may still have to be removed (it will depend on the reliability of the source.) If the source was not written by you and it is relatively reliable, then the remarks will probably be left in but they would no longer be your remarks since the source points to someone else. Finally, noticed that I had neever edited this article before, so claiming I have a fixation with it is bogus. I do like, however, to follow wikipedia editing guidelines. Gud dey, Brusegadi 22:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
might also learn how to spell exonerate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.35.6 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson

The article would be a bit more entertaining if it noted that ML's fiance has the same name as the other impeached president. But I suppose that would be irrelevant. Dynzmoar (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely and utterly irrelevant. And we're not really trying to entertain you, we're trying to write an encyclopedia. Tvoz |talk 05:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And your encyclopedia sucks, btw.

Might want to try making it entertaining. If you want a real encyclopedia, go check out Brittanica, not this TROLL ZONE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.176.10 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Current status

This article ends with her graduate degree from the London School of Economics. In the spring of 2007, Ms. Lewinsky has been spotted around Portland's Pearl District, rumors that were eventually confirmed. No information on her employment status. For some reason, this information is on Wikis in different languages, just not the main Wiki.

URL for reference:

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2007/04/did_monica_lewinsky_move_to_po.php Calickizzle (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed??? That blog entry is clearly labeled 'gossip', and is phrased as a question not a statement and cites to unnamed sources called "some snoopy spies". It fails our reliable source standard, totally, especially for a WP:BLP. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen several other pages (such as this one: http://www.oregonmediainsiders.com/node/1156) that repeat the rumor and add info. I wouldn't state it as a confirmed fact in the article, but perhaps we could put it in as a rumor.

Anyway, my brother's moving to the Pearl this summer, so I'll tell him to keep an eye out. ;-) Graymornings (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "intern"

The intro reads that Lewinsky "worked as an unpaid intern (entry level staff employee) at the White House." The word "intern" and the phrase in parentheses contradict each other; an intern is not the same thing as an entry-level employee. However, I'm not sure exactly what Lewinsky's exact employment status was at the time - anyone have info on that? Graymornings (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Who keeps reverting intro saying she is a Jewish American. Leave it at that. She is a JEWISH AMERICAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.231.118 (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally does not identify people by their religion in the lead sentence. Are you trying to make a point? Tvoz |talk 05:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed???

I see the statement "However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000." from dedicated article Paula Jones has not been flagged for citation, yet the statement "Paula Jones was paid $850,000 in an out of court settlement" has been flagged here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.235.130 (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Lewinsky College

SOMEONE has edited the early life section to say that lewinsky attended the evergreen state college. This is not correct. Beware, they may strike again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.6.100 (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monica_Lewinsky/Archive_2&oldid=510064558"