Jump to content

Talk:Monica Lewinsky/Archive 4

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


The use of 'Lewinsky'as a term for oral sex

Shouldn't there be some mention of the use of the word Lewinsky to represent oral sex, blowjob. It was and still is a quite common term used in and outside the media when referencing the event and oral sex in relation to politicians. Any thoughts on this?180.180.160.13 (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be so in a provincial setting like Bangkok but I've never heard or seen it in England. Here we might call that Ugandan discussions. JohnHarris (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Never ever heard this anywhere except right here on this Talk Page in Wiki. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
See the section about "Euphemistic expressions" at Recurring in-jokes in Private Eye. Graham87 13:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor correction

Minor correction... issue of Clinton inserting a "cigar tube" into her vagina. Actually, it was a cigar. Other testimony has him taking the cigar and placing it into his mouth, informing her, "It tastes good." Ergo... not the tube.155.99.172.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

bias of article

Why for example isn't Bill Clinton identified as a Democrat? Not in the whole article! BIAS! This is obviously nothing but damage control by the biased writers. --68.118.202.199 (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it is completely irrelevant to her life - this is her bio. Nice try, but not here. And please try not to insult hard working editors. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 19:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Who her employer was at the time of the scandal is absolutely germane to the story. Nice try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD97:8BC0:6C4C:5905:ED0A:3A57 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that this article doesn't make clear that she was working as an intern in the White House and Clinton was President? The point raised above is that we should be identifying him as a Democrat. My reply is still that his political affiliation is utterly irrelevant to her bio. (Hint: follow the links and you'll discover that he is a Democrat, if you somehow didn't know that. You'll also find out his mother's name and where he went to law school.) Tvoz/talk 21:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


Further bias: From the first paragraph: "Lewinsky became famous after President Bill Clinton admitted to having had what he called an "inappropriate relationship" with her while she worked at the White House in 1995–1996. The alleged affair and its repercussions...became known later as the Lewinsky scandal." Alleged? who is the author of this Wiki article covering for? Once the perpetrator admits to the affair then IT ISNT ALLEGED ANY LONGER! Stop covering up for Democrats in this resource! 2601:342:0:E3D0:6818:18D8:4DD4:E8C5 (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the insulting comment. There's no bias and no one is "covering" for anyone - you're the one bringing in politics here. We say "alleged" because we aren't in the business of adjudicating the fine points of terminology between "affair" and "inappropriate relationship" which is the sourced wording. I think we're clear about what it is said happened. We weren't there. Were you? Tvoz/talk 02:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

2015 cigar fundraiser

should this be included? http://electleaders.com/2015/04/hillary-furious-as-thousands-of-americans-send-cigars-to-her-office/

No. Tvoz/talk 04:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Monica 'was still beset by high legal bills...' Who was she in legal dispute with? Valetude (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? She had to retain counsel to get her through the grand jury testimony, her dealings with Kenneth Starr, potential perjury charges, and subsequent negotiations to obtain immunity, etc. - those legal bills must have been huge. I think the article is clear on this. Tvoz/talk 08:30, February 15, 2014‎ (UTC)

Heads-up

According to a story on MSNBC just now, Lewinsky has an article/interview in Vanity Fair coming out shortly - I won't be surprised if we see the return of the crazies here. We have pending review status, or whatever it's called these days, so we should be ok but should keep an eye out. Tvoz/talk 18:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course those you disagree with are "crazy". You are a typical "elitist Wikipedian". 71.217.106.227 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your assessment. And if this was your edit, please keep your POV out of your editing. Tvoz/talk 06:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
At the same time, please keep YOUR bias off the talk page. Deal?HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me? Tvoz/talk 03:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Bronia Poleshuk Jewish?

Dg17489n (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)The page claims that Monica's maternal grandmother- Bronia Poleshuk was Jewish. The sources quoted (footnotes 7,8,9) don't state that fact! this seems to be a mistake!

It's not a mistake - some sources are dead links, unfortunately, but the LA Times article which makes the point is still available. Tvoz/talk 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dg17489n (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)This is inaccurate. The La Times article does not say that Bronia Poleshuk is Jewish. It says "Somehow Samuel Vilensky got to the United States and, by 1948, had established himself as a self-employed import-exporter and married Bronia Poleshuk, a 28-year-old Russian refugee born in the British Concession at Tianjin, China. She had attended Yenching (now Beijing) University and, like thousands of other Jewish and White Russian emigres, apparently survived World War II in northeastern China, only to flee the ensuing civil war."

protected

I've protected this page for a week over the back and forth regarding "alleged" vs. "reported". Hopefully you folks can work that out here. — Ched :  ?  02:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:WTA, I think that neither one should be used here. Just use "Lewinsky said ..." or "Lewinsky stated ...". Those are the best terms to avoid this kind of trouble.
Another thing that's caused reversions recently is the statement "By 2014, she had still not held a full-time job since leaving the Pentagon in 1997.", sourced to the story "Monica Lewinsky's hard-won perspective" by Todd S. Purdum in Politico, which begins with "Her last full-time job was as a 24-year-old aide to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs." Dan0 00 reverted with the edit summary "The article previously mentions running a company, and hosting a TV show. Both of these are full-time jobs." Then confusingly an IP editor both restored it and then took it out, with the edit summary "Television show was five episodes and the company only carried her name. Purses carried her name, no indication of full time job." I believe we should go with what Purdum stated – he's an experienced reporter and is clearly aware of Lewinsky's jobs, since later he recaps her post-scandal career with "She has worked as a spokeswoman for Jenny Craig, played host of a reality television program called 'Mr. Personality,' designed her own line of handbags, ..." If he says none of these were full-time, why should we doubt it? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm ok with "stated"and agree the sourced no full-time job wording should be there. Tvoz/talk 05:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

remove line about desiring marriage?

I propose that the statement, "A stable relationship leading to marriage, which she reportedly desired, had also not happened" be removed from this article. As currently phrased, it seems both specious and sexist. Essentially it says, "Monica Lewinsky didn't get married." Ok, she also didn't do a lot of other things. Lots of people don't get married. It can't be referenced in the Vanity Fair article w/o becoming a Vanity Fair subscriber, so it's difficult to check what the original quote was. If it's valuable and insightful, perhaps there's a way to recast the sentence so that it contributes to the reader's understanding w/in the piece, w/o them having to read the Vanity Fair article. Quirkify (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The source isn't the Vanity Fair piece she wrote, it's this freely available Politico story that Todd S. Purdum wrote: "Lewinsky has indeed endured a nearly two-decade ordeal, in which she went from the giddy high of her involvement with the president to becoming 'possibly the first person whose global humiliation was driven by the Internet.' ... But her notoriety has also repeatedly cost her job opportunities with nonprofit organizations. Marriage (something she once told a co-worker's wife she deeply wanted) has eluded her, and even her 'blind dates' have been by definition only half-blind."
Including this isn't sexist, because the desire for a stable, lasting relationship is something that is universal in most humans, whether male or female, straight or gay, all races, all nationalities. Not everyone finds it, as you point out, but she has a lot less of a chance that most people do. The point to including this is to illustrate that for some unwise sexual/romantic behavior in her early twenties, her whole life has severely disrupted. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Quirkify that we should not be including the assertion concerning marriage. It is merely based on "something she once told a co-worker’s wife". Bus stop (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Bus stop, It's not our job to critique a reliably sourced journalist's decision to include that point. Purdum wrote it, based on his journalistic standards, and it was published in a reliable source, and it's not for us to second guess that decision. I agree with Wasted Time R that including it is not sexist - it is poignant and a good illustration of the impact her actions and the subsequent scandal had on her life. Tvoz/talk 23:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It can be considered sexist in the sense that women might get judged harsher than men (wrt being considerd an undesirable mate) for the same lurid behavior. Monica was a slut while Bill got high-fives, so to say. Since both men and women tend to desire stable-long term relationships there is nothing particularly sexist about saying she didn't like missing out on that, a desire for marriage is not some percieved 'feminine weakness' (except among some really close-minded individuals for whom marriage is 'prostitution')
The reference to marriage seems to be a good example of the way the scandal changed her entire life for years to come, which has become more relevant now that she is attempting to reinvent herself as anti-cyberbullying activist Selena1981 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit protected request: please fix ref 32

I request that a ref be fixed. The date on ref 32 is correct, so the extra words ("[date may be incorrect]") need to be removed because they are screwing up the citation:

  • "Monica: It's In the Bag". People. January 12, 1999 [date may be incorrect]. Check date values in: |date= (help)

BullRangifer (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Job Title

It's interesting because some people who know her might not know what her position is. Being that certain sectors of society are familiar with American Government, it's clear that some people have restrictions on both what they know and don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.154.42 (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There is much talk in this article of Monica's struggle to pay legal fees despite earning large sums of money. But there is no explanation of why she had to pay legal fees? For what? It's confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickmind (talk • contribs) 13:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

see here

Monica Lewinsky Pens Foreword for Shame Nation: The Global Epidemic of Online Hate (Sourcebooks 2017)

In 2017 Monica Lewinsky wrote the foreword for Shame Nation: The Global Epidemic of Online Hate by Sue Scheff with Melissa Schorr, published by Sourcebooks in October 2017.Suelscheff (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - added it. Would prefer a better reference than your blogpost though - if you have any 3rd party reliably sourced articles or reviews that mention her foreword, please post the ref here on talk and I'll replace what we have. Tvoz/talk 16:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Third party mention: People Magazine http://people.com/politics/monica-lewinsky-debuts-anti-cyberbullying-video/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Suelscheff (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sue - got it in. Tvoz/talk 21:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation to add / edit for thesis statement

I tried to track down a link to the thesis from LSE's thesis archive, but it isn't online. Can this section be edited to reflect a statement coming from her publicist as the source for the thesis title? (I don't have enough wikipedia cred to edit a locked down article.)

Instead of this: "Her thesis was titled, "In Search of the Impartial Juror: An Exploration of the Third-Person Effect and Pre-Trial Publicity."[citation needed]"

This:

"According to her publicist Barbara Hutson, her thesis was titled, "In Search of the Impartial Juror: An Exploration of the Third-Person Effect and Pre-Trial Publicity."

Citation: [1] Jamiehaz (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The Reuters article can stand as the citation alone - it is not necessary to say "according to her publicist Barbara Huston" - this is an article in a reliable source and that's what we look for - we don't normally say who is being quoted in such cases. Thanks for providing that source. Tvoz/talk 23:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/people-lewinsky-degree-dc/lewinsky-graduates-from-london-school-of-economics-idUSN2044156920061220

Grammar

The last sentence in the first section: "In 2014, she returned to the public view as a social activist speaking out against cyberbullying, which she was personally suffered of after being publicly ridiculed on the Internet regarding her scandal with President Clinton."

The part "which he WAS personally suffered OF" should be changed to "which she HAS personally suffered FROM".

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monica Lewinsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Claims that Clinton lied (under oath)

According to this article Lewinsky is claiming Clinton lied. What specifically is (was) she claiming was a lie? This article does a really poor job describing the scandal. The blow jobs Lewinsky gave Clinton wouldn't be considered by most reasonable people to be included in the very narrow definitions that Clinton's defense lawyers and the prosecution had preagreed to. OTOH, most reasonable people WOULD categorize them as constituting a "sexual relationship" - if the term's definition hadn't already been agreed to - but it had. Also, I think it would be appropriate to mention that Clinton was disbarred over his testimony (both by Arkansas and the U.S. Supreme Court) which lends some credibility to her (vague) claim.98.21.221.175 (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Nazi Germany?

The section on "early life" describes the parents of her father fleeing Nazi Germany, though the page on Bernard Lewinsky state his parents left Germany for El Salvador already in the 1920s. What´s correct? Tubantia (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Emmy Nominated

Should we talk about her Emmy nomination for her work on the In Real Life PSA. I feel like this is an important part of her re-emergence story. Link to more information https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/08/little-gold-men-monica-lewinsky-emmy-nomination

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

There is no full reference of Andy Bleiler in the article. I propose changing the last sentence of paragraph #4 under the Scandal heading to completely identify him on the first reference:

EXISTING SENTENCE: News of Lewinsky's affair with Bleiler also came to light, and he turned over to Starr various souvenirs, photographs, and documents that Lewinsky had sent him and his wife during the time she was in the White House.

PROSOSED SENTENCE: News of Lewinsky's affair with her former high school teacher, Andy Bleiler, also came to light, and he turned over to Starr various souvenirs, photographs, and documents that Lewinsky had sent him and his wife during the time she was in the White House. Pcoupaud (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. The first mention of Bleiler gives his full name and relationship to Lewinsky. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monica_Lewinsky/Archive_4&oldid=1089782018"