Talk:The Clinton Chronicles

Clinton Body Count

I corrected the sentence about the Clinton Body Count coming later after the film. The first "Clinton Body Counts" began circulating the internet in the Summer of 1993, and seems to have inspired the film, not the other way around. wikipediatrix 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit miss leading to represent the Clinton Body Count being debunked in a way that infers the documentary has been debunked. The last 3 minutes of the film scrolls the names of the Clinton Body Count, without narration; The film is 103 minutes long. The caption sayes:

Since August 1991 an alarming number of Clinton associates have died of unnatural causes, The following is a partial list

So what is actually debunked? They are dead? Being decapitated or shot is not an unnatural cause? 72.199.225.183 (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD

This article is being considered for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Chronicles.

Since the AfD discussion started, I've added the WaPo and NYT links found by Derex to the article. If we retain this article, we would need to fix the last 2 paras of the "Controversy and criticism" section. Cheers, CWC(talk) 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was Keep.--Tbeatty 16:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the 'box description' which was in violation of BLP. Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, I removed the box discription again. You YOURSELF said we don't REPEAT unfounded allegations or BLP violations here, and argued against your current line of editing on Larry Craig. You also said I think the video is notable but not the allegations. The box description contains the disproven allegations which are a violation of Pres Clinton's BLP rights. I will take it to BLP the next time its reinserted. Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com?

Is this serious or a joke? This is an article about a right-wing conspiracy theory drummed up by extremeists on the right... according to the article at least. To debunk this, they cite Salon.com, a radical LEFT-wing group. Add the Washington Post, New York Times, and other Leftist organizations and it makes you wonder. Now, you'd think there would be a resource out there that was somewhere under the tall part of the bell curve of politics that could address this. Otherwise, this article has ZERO credibility. --Asams10 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com is hardly "radical" and the NYT is hardly leftist. Regardless of what you think of them, Salon, the Washington Post and the New York Times are valid sources under WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 18:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Clinton Body Count Insertion Absurd

"I corrected the sentence about the Clinton Body Count coming later after the film."

Wow so you made a mistake due to faulty research? Big surprise.

"The first "Clinton Body Counts" began circulating the internet in the Summer of 1993, and seems to have inspired the film,"

This is an ecyclopedia not a speculation board for your speculations.

Snopes is a joke on top of it, snopes is not made by anyone citting any evidence that the witnesses on this film are not credible. You are smearing on purpose, cut it out. The snopes article is so absurd that it claims that the file on clinton made by an officer could not be found therefore it's not credible that he was assassinated. What the hell kind of stupid reasoning is that? ON TOP OF THAT IT SAYS ON THE FILM THE FILE WAS STOLEN.

"Largely debunked"? SAYS WHO? WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE IT WAS LARGELY DEBUNKED? That one sophist snopes article? THAT'S IT? OH NO WAIT YOUR "IT SEEMS".

?

GET REAL. YOU DO NOT DISCREDIT WITNESSES WITH YOUR OWN URBAN MYTH CRAP.

CITE EVIDENCE THAT THE WITNESSES ARE LYING NOT SPECULATIVE ARTICLES TRYING TO PASS THEMSELVES OFF AS TRUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.26.119 (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has serious problems. I just watched "The Clinton Chronicles" and it covers much more than just the Vince Foster case, but also Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and related topics of Clinton corruption which include the very document CIA drug smuggling activities that involve Barry Seal in Mena. Bofors7715 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is severely biased and the reference to Snopes.com should be incidental at the most. To leave the debunking of this film to snopes.com is inappropriate - this should be the place to address specific claims made in the film. Snopes is not subject to the same peer-criticism as Wikipedia. Let's break this article down into specific claims and accusations made in this film and the counter-claims made in response, rather than essentially closing the discussion because Snopes is the supreme authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.116.43 (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell

I doubt he went back on the contents of the film? With his death And the un-cited nature of that quote should we give him the benefit of the doubt?

Sure the 'facts' presented in the film ARE likely unfounded.. I couldn't agree more.. and in all honesty he had to have known that. However, given his profession and his active participation.. and in light of his death could we remove the quote until it is cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.232.99 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)