Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article.
This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, public relations manipulation, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

More information: Well-known, sometimes controversial senator, running for president
This is not a forum! This is not a forum for general discussion of personal opinions about the article's subject.
Any such messages will be deleted.

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Contents


*** PLEASE ADD NEW SECTIONS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE ***

[edit] With regards to "Very Long" tag

However, there might be a lot to say about Senator Clinton! The wikipedia Yom Kippur War article is long yet it was a very short event of days, compared to Clinton's nearly 60 years of life. Vote: Do not shorten for the sake of shortening.Dereks1x 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the "Very Long" tag may date back to before when material was split off into subarticles. The article is still kind of long even after that, but manageable I think. However imagine what will happen if she gets elected President! All that has come before will be dwarfed by the new material to come.
Regarding the "CV section" that you (User:Dereks1x) have been trying to get in, it doesn't do much good buried late in the article. If we are going to add something like that, it should go into the infobox at the start of the article. Then it could have a standard, prominent presentation for all politicians. But you'd have to campaign with the infobox maintainers to get this accepted. Wasted Time R 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I was orginally very confused about her background because it takes work to figure out when she was practicing law and if it overlapped with being First Lady. A short list of jobs is useful. What's there to hide. She was never in prison. She worked for a prestigous law firm.Dereks1x 01:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Her practicing law did overlap with being First Lady of Arkansas, but not with being First Lady of the United States. Wasted Time R 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really being wikipedia NPOV: we need to treat people fairly, not have a double standard

The opening paragraph has been very slightly modified to match that of Christopher Dodd, another Democratic presidential contender. We should treat them fairly and the same. We still give Senator Clinton the honor of mentioning that she's first lady and has several first.

I don't see how you can be against it unless you aren't fair. If this isn't the case and you want to change it, explain why inconsistency is fair?Dereks1x 01:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you picking only Dodd? Look at Barack Obama, John Edwards, John Kerry ... I've looked at `1/3 to 1/2 of all the Senator articles, and all the 2008 presidential candidate articles, and there is absolutely no consistency among them in their intros. But let me ask you this, what is your objection to the current intro? Wasted Time R 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Dodd is from CT, that borders NY. First, we make consistency between Dodd and Clinton, then we'll worry about the others? I can't see how you can be for inconsistency. It just isn't fair! And fairness and NPOV is what wikipedia is all about. What's so bad with Dodd's intro? It isn't negative or inaccurate.Dereks1x 01:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Inconsistency of arrangement of neutral and unquestioned biographical details in an intro is not a matter of fairness or NPOV - it's just plain old inconsistency - so your argument is a red herring. Your chance of getting all these articles to have consistent intros is zero, take my word for it. Your revised intro to this article wasn't as good as the existing one, because it was a bit redundant and had faulty wikilinking. Again, what is your agenda here? What do you think is wrong with what we have? Wasted Time R 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
For one thing, Dodd is called a politician, which he is. Hillary's occupation as politician is missing. Someone is really a politician when they run for more than one office. Jesse Ventura is difficult to call a politician cuz he just ran for one office then went back into wrestling or related jobs.Dereks1x 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong about Ventura. He was a mayor before he was governor and he was also involved in the shaping of third-party political organizations. So he is a politician just as much as HRC or anyone else. For the most part, however, I think it is redundant to say someone is a politician when you say they are a senator and running for president - obviously they are politicians. I just sampled a bunch of articles, and maybe 1/3 use 'politician' in the intro. Being Wikipedia, it's very inconsistent - while Ventura, who has had many other jobs, gets the label, Charles Schumer, who's never had any other job, does not. Trying to find consistency in Wikipedia will drive you insane, believe me, and battles over intros are always more trouble than they are worth. There are better things to do in Wikipedia. The article on the Clinton health care plan, for example, needs much expansion and citing; it was a major, major issue at the time with a long-lasting effect on Hillary's career, and it's bound to get renewed attention during the campaign. Wasted Time R 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, you seem completely clueless about wikilinking - you do things like "[[First Lady|First Lady]]" which means you don't understand piping, and things like "[[female]]" which means you don't recognize common English words. As a matter of friendly advice, learn more about the Wikipedia markup language and style guides before attempting to change the intros to high-profile articles. Wasted Time R 01:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need to mention that she's the front runner in the presidental election?

I would like to suggest that we consider being carefull with statements that she is the front runner in the election for 2008. We don't want to be like the media and attempt to call an election before it is done. We need to be a neutral as possible. I have not made any changes in the article; I am just opening this for discussion here. --Allyn 02:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some other editors have wanted to put this into the intro, which I oppose. But I see nothing wrong with mentioning it in the Presidential race section. We're not "calling" anything, just describing a simple fact. She is currently, by any metric (polls, money, organization, name recognition) the front runner. Doesn't mean she'll win; Howard Dean was the front runner during part of 2003, look what happened to him. Wasted Time R 02:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree she is the frontrunner by any objective measure, but I don't know if it should be mentioned here. Maybe it's enough to just say she leads the field in opinion polls and fundraising. The word "frontrunner" actually sounds kind of sensational, not the kind of word an encyclopedia might use. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on this either way. — Kelw (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I nuked it. Wasted Time R 02:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait Picture captions

It seems to me like they're mixed up. The one that says "Portrait of First Lady Hillary Clinton" looks like the one of Senator Hillary Clinton and the one that says "Portrait of Senator Hillary Clinton" looks like the one of First Lady Hillary Clinton. I can tell by the hair. However, I'm only 99% certain and not 100% certain, so correct me if I'm wrong please. In the meantime, I'll just switch those captions. Armyrifle 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the portraits are mixed up. It makes sense because the First Lady portrait appears to be set inside the White House, whereas the Capitol building is visible in the background of the Senator portrait. But I admit I'm not 100 percent sure about this either. — Kelw (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been worried about these two too, and did some research. The Image:Hillary Clinton first lady portraitHRC.jpg one, where she has her hand on a chair on the right and there's a White House plate on the left, is indeed her official White House First Lady portrait, painted in 2003 (check the date on a large image of it) by Simmie Knox [1] (who also did Bill's portrait) and unveiled (per custom, well after they had left the White House) in June 2004 [2] [3]. The late date of the painting is why she has her "Senator" look about her. I will update the article to better label it, and try to figure out where the other painting is from. Wasted Time R 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The other one, where she looks much younger and the Capitol is in the background on the lower right, is indeed mis-captioned. It was painted by Igor V. Babailov and is titled "Inauguration Day, 1993"; the Capitol is in it because that's where Presidential inaugurations take place (A ha!). It currently resides in the Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas.[4] I will correct its caption in the article. Wasted Time R 12:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm also not sure when the photo of the three of them returning to the White House after getting off Marine One is from. The caption says 1993 ... maybe, or maybe later. Couldn't find the image elsewhere and the source of it, http://web.archive.org/web/20001003122428/www1.whitehouse.gov/media/jpg/hrcfamily.jpg, doesn't state a date. Wasted Time R 13:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
And for my final observation, if you do Google Images searches for Hillary, be prepared to see a lot of weird stuff. Wasted Time R 13:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice work! So I guess U.S. Senators don't have official portraits, right? — Kelw (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure ... they do have an official photographic portrait, see http://clinton.senate.gov/about/photos/ — it's what we use in the article's infobox. Do they eventually get a painting portrait too? Or maybe only if they hold some high Senate rank, like Majority/Minority Leader or Committee Chair? Dunno. Wasted Time R 13:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add the link to Ido Wikipedia

io:Hillary Clinton - thanks, io:User:Joao Xavier 23:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wasted Time R 13:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)