Talk:I did not have sexual relations with that woman
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that has been merged and now targets the page: • Clinton–Lewinsky scandal Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Clinton–Lewinsky scandal Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the I did not have sexual relations with that woman page were merged into Lewinsky scandal on 11 July 2009. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Lewinsky scandal. |
Is this page necessary?
editGranted I could learn more about current events, but I haven't come by this "catchphrase" at all. Is this page necessary? And if it is, then shouldn't there be one for Nixon's, "I am not a crook."? I feel this page should be marked for deletion. (Unless there is relevance that I'm not seeing; in that case please ignore my ignorance. o_O) -WarthogDemon 19:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
We have pages for a lot of other political catch phrases, see list of political catch phrases. I am not a crook would make a good page too.
- FYI, as per the merge suggestion, we're discussing the proposed merge at Talk:Lewinsky scandal - so far, three people have replied, all saying we think this article should continue to stand. (And I also think "I am not a crook" could support its own article.) Tvoz |talk 06:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that merge suggestion finally closed as consensus not to merge. And, WarthogDemon, I don't know how you never came across this catch phrase. It was huge. But, oh well. Flyer22 01:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, as per the merge suggestion, we're discussing the proposed merge at Talk:Lewinsky scandal - so far, three people have replied, all saying we think this article should continue to stand. (And I also think "I am not a crook" could support its own article.) Tvoz |talk 06:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Popular culture section
editShouldn't the specific episode titles of the TV shows referenced (JAG and Gilmore Girls, respectively) be mentioned? I mean, JAG lasted ten seasons and Gilmore Girls lasted seven. That's a lot of episodes… –Micahbrwn (talk) 00:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- For anyone who reads this, that section (the popular culture section that was in this article) was removed in early April (April 7th) as "non-notable trivia". Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is ridiculous
editThis page is ridiculous and is further evidence of Wikipedia's extreme right-wing bias. Why, I wonder, isn't there a page for Bush's infamous "Bring 'em on" taunt? (And unlike Clinton's remark, Bush's comment no doubt led to the deaths of a number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, killed by enraged insurgents inspired by Bush's reckless words).
And how about Larry Craig's "I am not gay, I have never been gay?" That should have a page of its own as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it probably should - you want to start I am not gay, I have never been gay? – ukexpat (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Er, I've never noticed a right-wing bias on Wikipedia...Conservapedia, definitely, but those twats couldn't tell the difference between fact and opinion with the help of a neon sign pointing to each, so...I think you're just taking this a bit too seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)