Talk:Clinton–Lewinsky scandal

2003 ?

Re : -"Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) US Representative, voted to impeach Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal while he himself, was having a long-term affair with his chief of staff, Jennifer Laptook. (2003" - what does the "(2003)" reference here? 84.13.36.104 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Over-coverage claims

I think that the over-coverage claims need some more recent citations. These are all from the early 2000s and (I know this is OR territory here) attitudes towards scandals like this - particularly where one is in a position of power like Clinton - has shifted significantly since then in the US. More recent criticism seems to be on the nature of the coverage, not the over-coverage per se. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly removed this from the lead (there wasn't any elaboration on this in the body of the article anyway, and the lead shouldn't include info that's not in the article prose). −AFreshStart (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is the name of Monica Lewinsky in the title of this article?

I reviewed the other requests for moving this article, but it seems to me that this has never been discussed: Why is Lewinsky´s name in the title of this article? For me, this very much looks like victim blaming - because that is what she was: the victim in all of this. Perpetrator is definitely Bill Clinton, and maybe others - but Lewinsky? I cannot find anything in the article that suggest that she was part of the scandal - she had sex with a co-worker, which in itself is no concern of anyone. The scandal is about how Clinton behaved in the aftermath - but not how Lewinsky behaved. I dont know what the right title for this page would be, but would argue that the name "Lewinsky" should not be part of it.--Schreibvieh (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Propose renaming to "the Clinton Scandal" as is the preferred nomenclature (NY Times, etc) and as is also preferred by the victim. Gwikor Frank (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Article is extraordinarily unclear

I was trying to explain this article to my Taiwanese girlfriend who was unfamiliar with it and noticed that this article is extraordinarily unclear about what actually happened. The popular understanding, which has no doubt influenced many Americans’ personal relationships one way or another, is “Clinton got a blowjob in the oral office.” The type of sex act performed is also central to Clinton’s famous statements about the definition of “sexual relations.” But the word “blowjob” is nowhere in the article and “oral sex” does not appear in the introduction nor under “Allegations of sexual contact,” and only under “perjury charges,” where it is implied but not directly stated that Clinton received oral sex.

Also, I found this article where Lewinsky claims that the sexual acts in question didn’t actually occur in the Oval Office:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/monica-lewinsky-bill-clinton-never-hooked-oval-office-153847711.html

So where did it happen? “He [had] a private personal office that is off to the side that consists of a back study, a dining room, a little pantry and a bathroom. That’s where every intimate encounter took place.”

If this is correct, the article should include this information, because I think it is popularly believed, correctly or not, that “Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office.” The introduction to the article should provide enough information so that a reader knows what parts of that statement are or aren’t correct.

rdl381 (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)