Talk:The Clinton Chronicles

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 October 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]