Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Information does not make sense:

"Hillary Clinton made culturally dismissive remarks about Tammy Wynette and baking cookies and having teas during the campaign that were ill-considered by her own admission."

I'm new here, and although I think it would probably be common sense to delete it, I figured I'd ask permission first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logabob (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't even think about deleting it, these are two of the most (in)famous remarks she's ever made ... there are lengthy footnotes for both of them, that explain them in more detail. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wasted Time: Logabob is right,I think. Also, the entire first paragraph in that section has nothing at all to do with when she was First Lady. All of that should go in a different section if it belongs in the article at all. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed the non-First Lady stuff that took place before she became First Lady. If it's thought to be relevant it should certainly go in another section. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the wording a bit on the Tammy Wynette and baking cookies/having teas mentions, because they were perhaps a bit mysterious. Again, the footnotes give the full story on them. They were quite notable during the campaign. The idea that these remarks, and the Gennifer Flowers scandal, should just be removed from the article completely is ludicrous. They were crucial in first defining Hillary Clinton to the American public, and are covered in all biographies of Hillary, including her own autobiography. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a "1992 presidential campaign" section to include the above material, separate from "Role as First Lady". (They used to be together because the campaign incidents foretold many of the difficulties she would have as First Lady. But I can see the rationale for splitting them.) I still have "1992 presidential campaign" underneath the top-level "First Lady of the United States", even though obviously it precedes that; this is an artifice that is used in many political articles, to avoid having too many shortish top-level sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And whatever the questions here, mass deletion of historically important material is not the answer. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I've moved "1992 presidential campaign" out of the FL US section and into the preceding Arkansas section. It avoids the above artifice, and has some advantages with respect to how the images are used. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. That's a big improvement overall,istm. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, no thanks to you. What you did, deleting a big swath of material just because you don't think it's included in the right section, is how articles get wrecked. If no one has the article on their watchlist, the bad edit never gets seen, and the material gets lost. I've seen that it's happened in other articles, when I trace through the past history. You continue to be a disruptive editor who makes no useful contribution to this project. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Face facts: the material was not in the right section as you yourself have confirmed by putting it somewhere else. If the article managers/controllers were doing a good job in the first place, then less actives like Logabob wouldn't need to state the obvious and then wouldn't have their concerns summarily ignored/dismissed thus requiring people like me to do something. If I had not done anything then the article would not have been improved. Rather than stalk my individual edits, I encourage you to take seriously the concerns brought up, especially by the less obsessed editors, and then I won't have to step in to help get their quite legitimate concerns taken seriously. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
In terms of wrecking this article, you make no sense at all because you yourself have chosen to continue to leave out of this article the exact same "big swath of material" which you criticize me for deleting. Obviously this article is better without that chunk of material so my deletion did,in fact,improve this article. I have similar feelings towards you in the sense that I feel that obsessive article controllers/watchers are the single most disruptive influence on this encyclopedia because of the vast numbers of would be editors who are discouraged from participating in the project. Although the article might be passable it will never achieve the level of readability, succinctness and comprehensiveness that it could if there were more editors making less edits each. Having said that, I know you have good intentions and do not mean to be disruptive, therefore, I had no plans to mention my opinion in this regard...but, since you call me by that name, I'll just say that the feeling is mutual. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Your last remark I do not understand — I have not left the same material out, indeed I restored it. Specifically, you with this edit deleted all the material on the 1992 campaign. This is what I am criticizing you for. Regardless of which section it belonged in, it needs to be in the article. I with this sequence of edits restored the 1992 campaign material, but into a different section. If you had merely discussed your concern with what section it belonged in, I would have no quarrel with you. But your deleting of all of it was completely without merit. And your bringing User:Logabob into it is a red herring, because he or she was only concerned about one small phrase in the 1992 campaign material, not the whole thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My rejection of User:Logabob's proposal to delete "baking cookies and having teas" was because that step was completely unwarranted and it was clear that user had not bothered to read the footnotes about it. That said, upon looking at it again, I realized that to someone who wasn't already familiar with these remarks, the wording was so terse as to be a bit mysterious. Thus I have expanded the main text wording to hopefully make that better. Yes, I should have seen this the first time around and made the change then, at the time I responded to Logabob. My bad for not doing so. But this again does not warrant you deleting all of the campaign material, including Gennifer Flowers, 60 Minutes, conservative attacks, and so on. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no desire to continue these quarrels with you. But it is often hard to believe you are genuinely interested in article issues; you just seem to latch onto whatever complaints or comments other editors have. For instance, in the past you wanted to amplify the coverage of the Lewinsky scandal here, including renaming it and adding explicit "Bill and Monica cigar" descriptions. Yet now, you want to remove all mention of Gennifer Flowers from the article. How do we reconcile these positions? Wasted Time R (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a good question,WastedTime. It's only my opinion, but I think the cigar event was so extreme,perverse(to many),and,yes,humorous(to many), as well as being quite peculiar to the Clinton/Lewinsky liason (what other famous person in history has been caught doing this particular thing?), that it became/is historical and encyclopedic and will be recounted long into the future just as Catherine the Great's beastiality with [1]horses. More importantly, it is an event documented by an official U.S. government inquiry and reported by many Reliable Sources. On the other hand, what Hillary said about the Gennifer Flowers event was just a simple and shallow deflection/reaction which does not seem to me to be encyclopedic at all.Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It's your right to have that opinion, but Hillary's biographers don't share it. For example, Gil Troy's bio of her gives 24 pages to the 1992 campaign, including 4 pages to the 60 Minutes joint interview regarding the Gennifer Flowers sex scandal. He comments on the irony of Hillary having to play loyal wife rather than extoll her own accomplishments, and says the joint appearance is crediting with rescuing Bill's campaign. He doesn't mention the cigar business at all in the Lewinsky scandal part of the bio, as far as I can tell. The Gerth/Van Natta Jr. bio of her gives 25 pages to the 1992 campaign, including 3 pages to the 60 Minutes/Flowers episode. They say the interview defused the scandal, but Hillary created a "firestorm" with her Tammy Wynette remarks at the same time. They don't mention the cigar business at all either, from what I could see. The Joyce Milton bio gives 4 pages to the 60 Minutes/Flowers episode, and says that Hillary was more poised than Bill during it. So I think the importance of Hillary's role in these 1992 campaign events is pretty well established by how her biographers treat it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And for what it's worth, I actually think that the cigar business and the other explicit descriptions given of the Bill-Monica relationship do merit coverage in Wikipedia. It was a unique aspect of this scandal that all this explicitness came out over mainstream news venues and in government documents; many commentators talked about how the Starr Report approached soft porn. But the inclusion should be in the Lewinsky scandal or Starr Report articles, not here, for the obvious reason that those are the articles that directly cover the Bill-Monica goings on. Hillary wasn't a party to these activities. What goes in this article is how Hillary reacted to the Lewinsky scandal, the Flowers episode, and so forth. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What I find most interesting about the inclusion of this "Baking Cookies/Tammy Wynette" information is the timing. Per Wikipedia Guidelines, I definitely want to assume "Good Faith." But, I'm a little unclear on what would constitute "Good Faith" here. The Tammy Wynette comment was made over, what, 15 years ago? So, why is it all of the sudden a subject of MASS importance of some to have included in HRC's biographical page? I guess that all these "Good Faith" edits adding any and every questionable thing Bill or Hillary Clinton has ever said or done are just "Good Faith" attempts at making their articles as complete as possible. And, since everything is done "in good faith" they couldn't possible have anything to do with any heated primary election that has renewed a great interest in 15 year old comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Ways (talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been in the article all along — see this version from March 2007 for example. Very recently, one editor didn't understand the wording, another editor unjustifiably took it out completely, and I restored it with some better wording. Has absolutely nothing to do with current politics at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll confirm that. And the Tammy Wynette/baking cookies comments are certainly appropriate here - indeed it would be very odd for it not to be in this biography - those comments are emblematic of her relationship with critics at that time. And it's not necessarily the case that they accrue poorly to her - Tammy's feelings may have been hurt, but Hillary was making an important point about herself. The cigar story has nothing whatever to do with Hillary, and couldn't be more inappropriate for her biography. Adding it is the edit that ought to be scrutinized for motivation, not Tammy. Tvoz |talk 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
WastedTime agrees with me that the cigar story merits coverage on Wikipedia. The reasons I think it belongs here are A: because the Lewinsky Scandal section is here, and B: Hillary's passive/defensive acceptance of Bill's sexual behavior, over decades, fits the classic definition of "co-dependent"; with the widely publicized cigar incident showing the extent of the behavior she,herself, is/was willing to accept. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As has been said repeatedly, the Lewinsky scandal section here only deals with it as it pertains to HRC, not all aspects, so reason A is bogus. And it's great that you have theory B, but I haven't seen any of her biographers share it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding B: It's (co-dependent) not a description I made up [2][3][4],and I'd say it's a more obvious description than saying that she is "polarizing". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh stop this pop psychologizing already. You don't know a damn thing about her private life and your continual harping on it is irritating, inappropriate, and has no place here, and you've been told this many times. At this point, by bringing it up again, I think you are being deliberately disruptive. Tvoz |talk 01:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Tvoz, please stop being irritating and disruptive and you should at least apologize for your latest false accusation because I was not the one who brought this back up[5]Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We do in fact mention briefly the codependence possibility: "... others criticized her as being an enabler to her husband's indiscretions ..." where "enabler" is underlinked to the codependence article. Until we can mind-read her and Bill, it's hard to go much further. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and the "baking cookies" remark got a new lease on life when Obama brought it up at the debate the other night (pointing to the continuing irony that many of the charges against him in '08 are similar to charges made against the Clintons in '92). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Feature this article

I think this article should be featured. Anyone agree? QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Every amoeba is more fantastic and perfect than this or any article. Should each of them be featured on a list? Just concentrate on getting something done rather than patting anybody's back. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think this article should be a featured article on the main page. It's not about patting backs - it's about showing good articles on the main page. That also helps bring massive amounts of edits quickly improving articles ... so lets add it! Munchmuchmunch? (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I never read the main page cause it's boring. I'd like to see how much time people spend on the main page. Lots of people already try to edit this article but the new edits are quickly buried in controller(s) quicksand, e.g.[6], so there's no point at all in frustrating more attempted editors. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mr.grantevans2, I agree ... simultaneously funny and sad. I've mostly followed the drama in the shadows; noticing the facade of those who pontificate neutrality. Oxfordden (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to keep the article neutral ... two different editors want to remove her famous 1992 campaign controversies from the article, and I am arguing that doing so would be absurd and against all biographical treatment of her. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's a fresh example [7]of the nasty way good faith attempted contributorss are treated at this article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I support this being a featured article. It is me i think (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton is the place to indicate that, not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Handling of senior thesis matter

[...] new edits are quickly buried in controller(s) quicksand, e.g.[8], [...] Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That edit was backed out because the matter in question was already included in the article. In talk page conversation I told the editor where it was, and the editor was satisified. See here, here and here. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A link is not the same as article inclusion. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The matter is both included in the article and linked to. In this article: "Rodham returned to Wellesley, and wrote her senior thesis about the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky under Professor Schechter (which, years later while she was First Lady, was suppressed at White House request and became the subject of speculation)." And underneath this is a link to the Hillary Rodham senior thesis article. What more do you want? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wasted Time R ... I mean no disrepect, but, have you thought about recusing yourself from editing the Hillary page since you have supported her in the past? (cf: http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d) ...Oxfordden (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Missed this at the time ... but no, casting a vote is not even close to being mentioned in WP:COI. And the bottom line always is: edits have to stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of who types them in. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Attracted National Attention in 1969?

What do you mean, she "...attracted national attention in 1969 when she delivered an address as the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College..."

She did? Well where is the proof? Hmm, I was a teenager in 1969 and I sure don't remember this 'national attention'; do you?

Cite the 1969 media sources, please, to prove that this was 'national attention'. Rather than just something picked up by the local Massachusetts media.

And "first student to speak at commencement" at Wellesley? I mean, come on, commencement is all about students! Of course students would have been allowed to speak at a commencement ceremony! This doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do remember it - I was in college in New York City in 1969 and I remember the flak about a Wellesley student dissing Brooke at graduation. But then Life magazine was big in my house. Tvoz |talk 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz, please - you're insulting the intelligence of others following these threads in silence... Oxfordden (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Oxfordden, for insinuating that I am not telling the truth. As a matter of fact I do remember reading about a Wellesley student who spoke at graduation and was critical of Brooke who was also speaking at the exercises. It was talked about - it was a female student (of course it was at an all-women college or else she wouldn't likely have been giving a speech at all - yes, that's how it was in 1969), he was the only black Senator, albeit a Republican., and she was criticizing him in his presence. I was extremely politically aware in 1969, I was a woman in college (co-ed), and in those days, this was newsworthy stuff. I may have read about it in Life magazine which in fact my parents were charter subscribers to and it was always in the house or I may have read it elsewhere or saw a story on tv news. I don't remember which. And of course I don't recall the specifics that the woman's name was Hillary Rodham, nor did I say that I did. But I remember the incident. You can say that I'm insulting your intelligence, but in fact you're insulting me. So believe what you want - I don't really care. Tvoz |talk 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is how the body of the article explains it:

Stemming from the demands of some students,[27] she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address.[25] Her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes.[22][28][29] She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement;[8] she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.[30]

The style of the article is that footnotes aren't used in the lead section, as the lead just summarizes material present in the body of the article, and the footnotes are all there in the body (as you can see). As for national atttention, Life magazine was definitely national and very widely read and influential at the time. The Irv Kupcinet show was not as well known across the nation, but was syndicated to up to 70 stations, so she gained additional national exposure from it as well. As for "first student to speak", as the article body makes clear, she was the first to deliver the commencement address; you are likely right that other students probably made introductory remarks, presentations of class gifts, etc., before her.

But I agree the lead section language wasn't clear on the second point, so I've now changed it to: ... Hillary Rodham attracted national attention in 1969 for her remarks as the first student to deliver the commencement address at Wellesley College. Better, I hope. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also added a direct cite to the Life issue in question (June 20, 1969, article title "The Class of '69"). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Leading Candidate or Candidate?

I heard somewhere that there as a war going on about whether she should be refered to as leading candidate or just candidate. Currently it is on just candidate. Which one do you think it should be?

Non-Biased facts:

Leading: -She is in the top two -She should get her Florida and Michigan Delegates -There is talk about a re-election in Florida -She is ahead on the polls in pensylvania -She is heavily attacked, giving her publicity -It could not only be used as first place, but with power. Like in the fact she is powerful

Candidate -She isn't frontrunner -Her chances of winning are slim -"Leading" makes her look powerful -There is no way she can get her Florida and Michigan delegates -She is the weaker candidate -Shye can't raise enough money

PLEASE HELP WITH FORMATTING! [22:16, 16 April 2008 Politicalpundit]

At this point the whole 'issue' has become troll bait. No "leading". The Obama article doesn't use it either, anymore. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I took out the word Protestant from info box. In general just the word Christian is enough. This also matches Obama's and McCain's articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax returns

Are details of Hillary Clinton's tax returns really notable enough to be included in her BLP? There is certainly an argument for covering them in the campaign article, but I are they notable enough in the context of a summary of her entire life? I find this detail hard to reconcile with WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This article mentions them in context of tracing the Clintons' financial well-being, which is mentioned several times throughout the course of this biographical article. The Clintons' relatively low incomes in the 1970s were responsible for their Whitewater investment and her cattle futures trading, both of which would have unexpected outcomes. There's a quote from Bill that I'd like to include if I can verify it, that the Clintons were the poorest couple to enter the White House in over a hundred years. Subsequently, things have changed, and after leaving the White House the couple (primarily him) has made a ton of money. This is all legitimate biographical description, and it's in that context that the tax returns are mentioned. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Clinton's admission ... that her ... statements ... were mistaken ...

Under "Presidential campaign of 2008" it says : Clinton's admission in late March that her campaign statements about having been under hostile fire from snipers during a 1996 visit to U.S. troops at Tuzla Air Base in Bosnia-Herzegovina were mistaken ....

Who the hell mistook her statement ?? Wasn`t that a clear and unmistakable statement ?? Only in Wikipedia !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.70.49 (talk • contribs)

And "only in Wikipedia" could someone so misunderstand: mistaken as in I made a mistake. See the reference. Tvoz |talk 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
her ... statements ... were mistaken... By whom?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.93.144 (talk • contribs)
Did you read the above response and the title of the source article? No one said that other people mistook her comments. She said she made a mistake. That is a completely comprehensible use of the word "mistaken". Tvoz |talk 05:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I was not talking about the the reference, I was talking about Wikipedias text !
Whereas the reference says "she made a mistake", Wikipedia says "her ... statements ... were mistaken" , thereby introducing the ambiguity that her statements e.g. were mistaken by the audience as being truthful , or whatever ...).
Why use an ambiguous phrase and bury the truth in a reference ??
(And be assured, I did read the reference before my first comment! But the reference is not the point, Wikipedias ambiguous text is.)
I agree with Tvoz that you're willfully misinterpreting 'were mistaken', but since we aim to please around here, I've changed it to 'were incorrect'. I've also made Paisan30's last edit to the same subject more concise; we're in danger of giving this episode undue weight at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the correction Wasted Time, it`s much more precise now. Thanks.
I'm not sure "incorrect" is the best term because that assumes that she intended to give the correct answer which is a pov assumption. "not true" would really be the best or else using her direct quote: "So I made a mistake," she said. "That happens. It proves I'm human, which you know, for some people, is a revelation." Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Including the full quote takes up too much space and gives it too much weight. I don't care among "mistaken", "incorrect", "not true", "false", "inaccurate", they all mean the same to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hillary's eye colour is fake: she wears blue contact lenses

Ok, those aren't my harsh words, they are what I read in the following article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/19/wuspols219.xml Anyway, I searched Google because I found it a bit hard to believe. On a last ditch effort I checked this page to see if it were true or not. I'm still not sure. The source is Camille Paglia but just because it's in print doesn't mean I am going to believe it outright. Anyway, if this is true that Sen. Clinton wears color contacts, I would like to know if there is any reason she has given why (and when) she started doing so. It's trivial, I know, but I think a lot of people would be fascinated by this. Full disclosure: I do not support Sen. Clinton for president. But, unlike Ms. Paglia, I don't find this a scandalous aspect of her character or relevant other than just being an interesting factoid--if true--sort of like I find it interesting which hollywood actors are vegetarians (or else it's a possible slander-rumor to be debunked--yes, I know that's not what Wikipedia is for!--which might make an interesting note for Paglia's page if she has one). Well, anyway, if anyone has any comment, I'd like to have it. --210.172.229.198 (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a comment. "Trivial" doesn't really capture it. We're neither here to debunk nor spread rumors, and this kind of item has no place in an encyclopedia even if true, so I think we should just move on now. Take it to the attack-Hillary blogs - I'm sure you'll find a receptive audience. Tvoz |talk 05:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Sorry you feel that way about me. I'm disappointed but hope if you hear me out you will tone-down your response. In order to not "attack" her I posted in this discussion first. I did not wontonly edit the article. I hope in the future you will be more civil. I have a lot of respect for wikipedia and if you seriously think I am attacking her with my suggested addition, then why don't you just remove my comment here altogether? I suspect the reason is because, despite your words, you know I am not attacking her--and I appreciate that at least. Like I said, it was an interesting piece of trivia, in my opinion. Sorry that upset you. I hope I can convince you that my intentions are not sinister. If it were about Obama, or really any public figure as visible as Sen. Clinton, I would feel the same way. Not everyone is a partisan out to get someone; just some of us are intrigued by political trivia. It is interesting to me when any public figure alters their appearence or has a unique foible. Please be objective. I'm willing to accept if it is too trivial for this article. Also, I thought at the very least it would be worth giving a heads-up here if it were false because probably someone who IS partisan will try to add it to her article. I know this page gets slandered a lot. I'm willing to dismiss your belligerence as a consequence of that. If you are a regular editor of this article keeping it free from vandalism, then as a Democrat, I thank you. Also, sorry for the anonomous IP. I'm not at home and I don't want to log-in. Partly because I don't want someone to vandalize ME. PS Preference for one candidate does not necessarily preclude admiration or respect for the other.

k, whats with the argument in the middle of the discussion page? arent we supposed to talk about improving the article, not debunking just one line from it? Mast3rlinkx (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)mast3rlinkxMast3rlinkx (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, nevermind. I'm sorry I even brought it up. Let's just forget the whole thing. It's not worth it. Peace?
[ec] I don't feel any way about you - I didn't comment on you or your motivations, just on the content of the item you were asking about. Whether Hillary Clinton wears blue contact lenses or not is unencyclopedic, and seems to me to be a hop-skip-and-a-jump from being a bogus accusation of untruthfulness on her part. The reason I suggest taking it to the Hillary-attack blogs is that many of them have lower standards to meet than Wikipedia does in order to have material posted, and they may be willing to explore this with you. So sure, peace, and let's move on. Tvoz |talk 07:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, I wouldn't expect an objective analysis from an attack blog. I'm sure you would not either. Therefore I think your suggestion is sarcastic and is in fact a comment on me and my motivations. If that is not what you intended, then I will take you for what you intended to say rather than what you seemed to say. Otherwise, please just be less sarcastic. Finally, if I inadvertently insulted you or offended you or otherwise got on your bad side, please accept my apology. Anyway, I do agree with you, though, after thinking about it. I also heard she colors her hair but just about everyone does and that's not considered unusual. For some reason, the eye color thing just struck me. Then I remembered she was on TV wearing glasses and has worn glasses before so it would be pretty improbable for her to wear color contacts. But it is a shocking jab accusation to throw out there by Paglia and totally undermines her objectivity. Again, sorry I brought it up (and I am not being sarcastic). Thanks for the work on this article. I don't like all the BS that people say about her on the web and I refer to this article a lot. Delete this entire section if you feel it's for the best (you can do that right?).
Tvoz, I disagree. If she is a long time wearer of blue contact lenses, we should mention it like how we would mention someone who always wore a monocle. 99.233.20.151 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The article does discuss her fashion changes while First Lady, including the many different hairstyles, because that was highly visible and much commented upon at the time. This contacts thing is neither. And Camille Paglia, while an important voice for our time (or somesuch cliché), is not a reliable source for facts like these. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is just one more example of attempted good faith editing being dismissed in a nasty and mean-spirited way by the article controllers. I wish Tvoz would stop it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And yes, of course it should be briefly mentioned if there is a reliable source. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about this, nor is there a reliable source for it. Tvoz |talk 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The telegraph article isn't reliable? As a source of facts, of course, disregarding the opinions it states. And agreed with everyone else, this should be stated, however briefly. It's a fact about Hillary Clinton. This is an article on Hillary Clinton. If your argument is lack of notability, notability doesn't limit article content (see WP:NOTE#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content). If you mean to say it's irrelevant, that's purely a matter of opinion, and I think you're outweighed here. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:48, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Let me be clearer. There is no verification that this is a fact - Paglia throws it out there in the middle of an opinion attack piece that includes no indication of its veracity. She also claims that "Hillary, despite the rumours, is no lesbian. She's a crucifix-wearing, Methodist do-gooder who confidently thinks she's God's agent. There's no room for random eroticism in her calendar." There are at least four assertions in those sentences that have no backup - we wouldn't use that as a source. These are her opinions for which she offers no proof, as she doesn't regarding the alleged contact lenses. I'll say again what I said up front - we're not here to spread or debunk rumors. The Telegraph did not report this as a news item, vetted or otherwise confirmed according to normal journalistic standards; it is an offhand assertion in an attack opinion piece. I think the item would likely be too trivial to include even if we had verification of it, unless it had some import that hasn't been made clear, but without any verification it's just another item of trivia. Tvoz |talk 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you there. Saying that someone is a "crucifix-wearing methodist do-gooder" is vastly different from saying they wear colored contact-lenses. One is clearly stated as an opinion and the other a fact. If an opinion piece from, say, NY Times Magazine says that Jodie Foster is a bitch who graduated from MIT (I of course just made this up as an example), the source is still reliable enough to use the fact portion of that (graduated from MIT), while disregarding the opinion (she's a bitch). And again, what is trivial, or rather, "important enough to include", is a matter of opinion, and I as well as many others here disagree with you on that. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:37, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Ok - I happen to recall that actually Jodie Foster went to Yale, and that can be verified in numerous reliable sources, which is my point. (Yes, I know you weren't actually claiming MIT.) I have not seen any reliable sources verifying the "fact" that Clinton wears blue contact lenses; this is a separate consideration from whether or not it's worthy of inclusion. But without verification from a reliable source that this is a fact, we don't get to the next step. No one has come forward here with anything more than Camille Paglia's attack piece, and Paglia doesn't provide any citation or evidence, so we have no verifiable source. That's not a matter of opinion. We also don't know that she wears a crucifix, which Paglia claimed. That's no more verified than the blue contact lenses. (By the way - I'm not sure I'd characterize it as "many others here" disagreeing about the importance, but until we have something verifiable it doesn;t much matter.) Tvoz |talk 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not sure what the significance of the colored contacts are even if true. She also colors her hair for sure, she uses eye makeup and face makeup and ... it's all cosmetics. Is coloring hair okay but colored contacts somehow bad? Maybe I'm missing the point ... Is this supposed to indicate something about her character? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's significant in that people would be surprised about it and don't readily expect it, versus something like makeup. Saying it's all cosmetic says nothing about how similar the aspects are in their interest to the public. If she had a fake earlobe, that's cosmetic too, but you can bet it would be in the article. And people are pretty surprised about this, if you take a look on google. The fact shows up in many places, and it seems plainly obvious from old photos versus new photos, but I'm having trouble finding a good objective source that plainly states it. I hope someone can find one. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:54, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. It still feels like a "feature" story rather than a "news" story, and one that we don't usually include. Unless a lot of news reports comment on it, it seems kind of marginal. And people wonder why the article gets long ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's not do that. Don't imply that peoples' complaints about the length is a reason not to add things. It's moot right now, but hopefully we'll find a source, and then to be continued. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:19, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Hey, the article length doesn't bother me ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are a couple of sources but I do not know if either is acceptable:[9][10]Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
An op-ed opinion column and the Drudge Report. What do you think the answer is? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ditto Wasted's comment. Op-ed != RS. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Drudge article apparently has before and after photos which maybe adds reliability? But maybe not; I was just asking. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I just re-read RS and noticed this: "When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious." How does that square with the idea op-eds do not qualify? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A lot of people have said a lot of things about either or both Clintons, over the years; should we include all of it? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That's true, but Tvoz made the point: "until we have something verifiable it doesn;t much matter" so these sources are my attempt to address her point.Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an utterly trivial and pointless addition to the article. Including a fluffy factoid such as this applies a caveat of dishonesty to her biography. Can you really imagine this being mentioned in any heavyweight biography? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton was fired from her first job 'because she was a liar.'

This is a very important fact that is missing from Senator Clinton's entry.

In an interview of her former employer, Attorney Jerry Zeifman, he reveals that he fired Hillary for being "an unethical and dishonest lawyer." A full quote from the cited article appears below.

[long quote elided]

Source: [11]

JaymzLawOne (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen this before. There aren't to my knowledge any mainstream, WP:RS sources that have bought into Zeifman's story. In fact, in other contexts Zeifman has admitted he didn't fire Rodham, as he didn't have the power to; he just processed her termination papers, when the committee wrapped up work after Nixon resigned. See [12] for Media Matters' references on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

height

How tall is she? I can't find the information anywhere in this article, and the reference at Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates is to a forum -- perhaps the worst reference I've seen on Wikipedia in years. --M@rēino 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Article length

WWE Appearance

Don't want to add anything to the article as it may be seen as irrelevant, however, is it worth mentioning her "wrestling match" against Barack Obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazzeee (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll refer you to a similar discussion here: Talk:Barack_Obama#WWE. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I feared as much as not adding it to the article is concerned, thanks for that. --Вlazzeee 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia in notes

Many of the notes feature trivia in them. This is not really acceptable under MoS. The following are part of the trivia:

  • "In 1995, Hillary Clinton said her mother had named her after Sir Edmund Hillary, co-first-climber of Mount Everest, and that was the reason for the unusual "two L's" spelling...."
  • " This Google search result produces several hundred hits. Many are citations of "Children Under the Law" in other scholarly articles or books. There are many general media references and Wikipedia echoes as well."
  • "During the political damage control over the Gennifer Flowers episode during the 1992 campaign, Hillary Clinton said in a joint 60 Minutes interview, "I'm not sitting here as some little woman 'standing by my man' like Tammy Wynette....
  • "Less than two months after the Tammy Wynette remarks, Hillary Clinton was facing questions a"
  • "Following the Democrats' loss of congressional control in the 1994 elections, Clinton had engaged the services of self help expert Jean Houston, who allegedly sometimes dabbled in psychic experiences, spirits, trances, and hypnosis. Houston encouraged Clinton to pursue the Roosevelt connection"

If this information is important, it must go into the article. Also, much of this information is not important to summaries of the topic and are better served in the main article that discusses them. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

None of these items are trivial. They are all well-known episodes in Hillary's career, that caused controversy at the time, that we are trying to cover in some degree of detail, fairness, and balance, but without giving them undue weight in the main text. (If you want to know how difficult this kind of problem can be, check out the action at Talk:Barack Obama.) This method of expanding upon these episodes in footnotes has been in place in this article for a long time and has worked out well; it has contributed to the relative stability of the article (again, check out Obama for an example of instability). I am not aware of anything in MoS that proscribes this usage. Indeed, the opposite: WP:FN says "Footnotes add material that explains a point in greater detail, but that would be distracting if included in the main text." That's exactly what we're doing here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you know what the definition of "trivia" is. Trivia is any item of information that is not immediately part of the surrounding context of the text, and displacing such information into "notes" turns it into trivia. The above information pulled out does not "explain" the lines mentioned in any reasonable way according to MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Your last statement is wrong. The first footnote above comes after the first instance of her first name in the main text, and explains its origins and the controversy around it. The second footnote supports the text assertion that "The article became frequently cited in the field.[55]" The third and fourth footnotes expand upon the main text statement "During the campaign, Hillary Clinton made culturally dismissive remarks about Tammy Wynette and her outlook on marriage,[118] and about women staying home and baking cookies and having teas,[119] that were ill-considered by her own admission." The fifth footnote expands upon the main text statement "The pressures of conflicting ideas about the role of a First Lady were enough to send Clinton into "imaginary discussions" with the also-politically-active Eleanor Roosevelt;[129]". In each case, the footnote is indeed explaining, supporting, or expanding upon a statement in the main text. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You can say its wrong all you want, but if the information was important, it would be in the article. It is not. It has no reason to be there. Stop WP:OWNing the article and please follow WP:WEIGHT, which goes so far as to justify removing the information completely along with at least 10% of the article as it is now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This method of handling certain of her controversies was endorsed by a good number of editors at the time; see this history for some of it. It had nothing to do with ownership, in fact I had to be convinced to break up the separate controversies article at the time by Jackbirdsong, Tvoz, Jreferee, and some other editors. Your notion that WP:WEIGHT precludes the use of footnotes for achieving a proper balance is unsupported by any WP rule or guideline. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Weight states that items should not be given more attention than what they deserve. Having multiple sentences on the origin of her name, for example, instead of one simple sentence in the article, is an issue on Weight. It is trivia and not encyclopedic, and giving it multiple lines in the article is a weight problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Look back through the talk archives, the Hillary name origin thing comes up repeatedly. In the judgement of the editors who've worked on this up to now, even one sentence about it in the main text would be undue weight, but a fuller explanation of it in a footnote is reasonable to avoid the periodic charges that the whole article is a "whitewash". There's a lot of history in this article, of balancing things, which you are probably unaware of. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Never thought of having a page devoted to her pre-Bill Clinton years and included it there? Or included it in an article that deals with the time she made the remarks? Either way, two simple solutions to remove the trivia from a page it doesn't belong. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Any attempt to move this kind of material to subarticles also meets with howls of "whitewash". People know that subarticles only get 1/100 the readership of the main article (check the http://stats.grok.se/en/ counter if you don't believe me). Just with the Senate subarticle, which covers her least controversial period (compared to First Lady and Arkansas and college), I've gotten hammered on trying to move out the Levin and Byrd amendment complexities [it's still here, another case of where I lost the debate], on trying to move out the video games legislation [ditto], on moving out the flag burning amendment votes [there I prevailed], just to name three. The earlier sections are fixed in time — nothing new is going to happen in them — and so I think it's best to dodge all the what gets moved out, what doesn't get moved out issues by keeping it all here. Obviously this is something that other people may have different views on. For bigger controversies, I did create separate articles, e.g. Hillary Rodham senior thesis, Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy, and of course the major controversies all have their own articles, e.g. Whitewater controversy, Travelgate, etc., all with summarized mentions of them here. Even with all this attention, there are still charges of "whitewash" claiming not enough space is given to the controversies in this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Fears of complaint are not a justification to disregard MoS. If they are complaining, then they do not belong on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, do you think you could modulate your tone here? Wasted Time R doesn't own the article, he just gives it a lot of attention and has the facts at his command to explain the genesis of those footnotes that you questioned. The methodology of putting detail in footnotes is well established in academic writing and supported by Wikipedia's own guidelines on footnotes. You may not like it, and you're welcome to say so and say why you think a different approach would benefit the article's flow and scope, but please do it in a way that doesn't insult the editors here. Tvoz |talk 03:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz, the definition of "owning" is a person who does put a lot of effort into an article and is unwilling to change the article to meet the standards of the community. This is a clear case of such, especially with the above wanting to justify excessive length of the article and the unwillingness to remove content that does not belong or is not vital to the encyclopedic nature of the article. Please see What Wikipedia is Not. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Your giving your opinion does not equal the standards of the community. If you look back through the talk archives, you will see many cases where I made edits based on others' requests, where I have lost debates (the idiotic two-decimal-point results in Iowa still rankles me but remains in the article), and so on. You will also see cases where I argued against changes or requests. That's how it works. You are the first and only editor who's objected on principle to using footnotes to deal with relatively minor but still notable controversies. There is no consensus whatsoever to take those out, just your own personal objections to them. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I am quoting guidelines and asking that the page is cut down accordingly. I don't care about the content, and thus, its not my opinion. I am not choosing any aspect of the page. I am telling you the rule. Furthermore, if you think they are notable, take them to an RfC and see if the community agrees. I see no such process here, which is a disregard for standard Wikipedia consensus guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict]Yes, I know what ownership is, and it is not at all what Wasted does here, which I know because I've been an active editor here for over 15 months. You've been here for less than one day. so you may not know as much about the history of this article as you think you do. And the thing is, you don't represent the standards of the community, you are merely expressing an opinion on how those standards should be applied. Other editors disagree with you, which you don't seem willing to acknowledge. Tvoz |talk 03:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Unwillingness to edit an article down to fit with MoS is evidence of WP:OWN even if you claim that he doesn't. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, I've been following the editing of this article for months now, and seen the effects of the removal of apparent trivia. Without supporting information, the page is attacked and haphazardly edited by Hillary haters who want every misstep by the candidate to be featured. With extensive supporting information in the body of the article, Hillary lovers jump in and delete entire incidents, claiming excessive criticism of their favorite. The longtime editors here (you've been in exchanges with two of them; there are others) have been refining the balance of the page all this time, and accommodating new editors and occasional commentators like me with impressive grace. Please follow Tvoz's advice-- good suggestions will build a consensus, and the longtime editors are sensitive to consensus. CouldOughta (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Potential edit wars are not a justification to include information that doesn't fall under "weight" and "not" guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Ottava Rima about the WP:OWN problem which I think Tvoz has also fallen into. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Walmart?

Where did the information go of her being on the board of walmart, as well as the controversy she caused among unions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVpPGxuafA http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/hillary_clintons_walmart_years/ --Waxsin (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Her being on the Wal-mart board is mentioned in the introduction:

... as well as sitting on the board of Wal-Mart and several other corporate boards.

and is discussed in-depth in the "Later Arkansas years" section:

... she also held positions on the corporate board of directors of TCBY (1985–1992),[108] Wal-Mart Stores (1986–1992)[109] and Lafarge (1990–1992).[110] TCBY and Wal-Mart were Arkansas-based companies that were also clients of Rose Law.[89][111] Clinton was the first female member on Wal-Mart's board, added when chairman Sam Walton was pressured to name one;[111] once there, she pushed successfully for the chain to adopt more environmentally-friendly practices,[111][112] pushed largely unsuccessfully for more women to be added to the company's management,[111][112] and was silent about the company's famously anti-labor union practices.[112][111][109]

In fact, cite 112 is the ABC News story that is you referenced. Satisfactory? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh

"In the 2008 presidential nomination race, Clinton has won the most primaries and delegates of any woman in U.S. history."

Compared to who? 71.68.15.63 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Compared to any of the women in Category:Female United States presidential candidates. I believe Shirley Chisholm in 1972 had the highest totals until Hillary, with 152 delegates and, depending on your definition, one primary win. See Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_11#Shirley_Chisholm_was_the_first_woman_to_win_a_primary_in_1972 for more on the latter. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If this is well cited, I am not sure why it is not a fair point. It is me i think (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
How many women have won primaries, exactly? Two? Three? If she had one the most out of dozens, then maybe it would be notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This has a long article history to it. What we're trying to get across is, she's the first woman ever to run for president in the U.S. who had a real chance of winning (even if she didn't eventually win). That's very notable. Our trying to say this has been through three or four different formulations so far, with earlier incarnations objected to once Obama passed her, and then another objected to when this obscure "win" by Chisholm was discovered. This is the current formulation. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Word... 71.68.15.63 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Scrap it. Not notable other than in a sexist way and not really even in that way. This is a way to shorten the article just a bit. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It's hardly sexist to note accomplishments for women. The Margaret Chase Smith and Shirley Chisholm article both mention their "firsts" in the lead section. So do Sally Ride and Eileen Collins in another field, and countless others. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Role of parents

Pethr, please discuss content changes here before cutting stuff. There's a rationale for everything that's in the article, and it at least merits some discussion before removal.

Regarding the role of her parents, in that era it was not automatic at all that parents would encourage girls to pursue careers and goals of their choosing. Many just wanted their daughters to get married and start families, nothing else. Hillary owes a lot to her parents, both her mother and her father, who in other respects was very conservative (in the non-political sense) but in this respect was not. So this merits inclusion. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Such information seems really redundant. If you look at article about Bill Clinton his early life sections are about half as long as Hillary's. There's too much information which isn't as important as her later carrier. What they did in summer together and where they lived then also isn't in my opinion notable. And well-known for support seems weasly.--Pethr (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you mean "redundant"? Where else does it say that her parents encouraged her? She's had a number of "firsts" ... first Wellesley student commencement speaker, first female partner at Rose Law, first First Lady with an explicit legislative policy portfolio, first First Lady to seek and gain elective office, etc. It's important for a biographical treatment to show how she got that way, what her childhood influences were like, etc. It's extra important in that she was raised with one set of political beliefs, then adopted another. As for "weasly", I'll try to see if I can come up with more specific wording for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've now done that, with stronger citing as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As for the Bill Clinton article comparison ... in general on Wikipedia you'll go insane if you start making comparisons like that. There are endless examples of things that don't get enough space, things that get too much space, and so on. The last time I looked at the Bill Clinton article, I thought that that "Early life" section was too short, that it rushed through a vital period in his life that ended up producing an unlikely American success story but also some character flaws that would haunt his political career. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, with content edits, it's best to keep them separate, so that we can change one without affecting the other. I think "faculty" is better than "professors" because the former term encompasses teachers who may not be professors in a strict term, but who are relevant to hiring goals, diversity, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not so fluent in English and didn't decode it properly. It isn't exactly the first meaning that comes to mind to non-native speakers and source also used professors. I don't really care about it that much, I only thought it would be easier to understand. I understand that you care a great deal about every detail in the article and it is really very well written and sourced but simply at least the early life part is way too long. May be breaking it out as main article would solve the problem (I believe somebody already suggested that on FAC). AFAIK it is very rare for bios to have main article for early life but it seams like a sensible solution. I somehow know you will not like this idea.:)
You're right ;-) It's a multi-part reason, but it's late here and I can't stay on further tonight, but I'll try to give a response tomorrow. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
And what about that part about Bill and summer? Is it really that important for her life that they moved in to somewhere and he cancled his plans because he loved her?--Pethr (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where you're from, or how familiar you are with the Clintons and their perception in America, but there's this whole school of thought that Bill and Hillary's relationship has been a contrived, artificial, cynical joint partnership for political gain, with the ultimate goal to both become president of the U.S. And that they've never really loved each other, and have had frequent affairs with others (true in Bill's case, it seems), and so forth. So this bit is in the article to show that Bill actually changed his plans to follow her around, which indicates that this theory is not true, or at the least not all true. Describing the relationship between Bill and Hillary is important because the course of her life was forever changed by him, both for better (gaining a fast entry into politics and eventually elective office) and for worse (her accomplishments have often been discounted as her just being his wife, not to mention Monica et al, not to mention he's messed up her presidential campaign several times). So that's why things like this are in there. And I would note that the major Hillary biographies also spend a lot of time on her early life and these years. That said, I'll see if I can make it a bit terser. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If it was just a calculated relationship he would fake that sentence anyway, wouldn't he?:) I just don't think it is that important. They obviously are or were in love. I don't know if we should think so much about some gossip when we write this article. We should think more about all those people who need to read X KB of nuances and important little things before they can understand the subject better. I agree that the article really shows Hillary in great detail but may be too many people will be skiping whole parts because they are not interested that much in this less important phase of her life. But we obviously don't agree on this. May be let's wait for input from others. I'm relatively new to this article (although I read and edited it a little bit a year ago) so others may have different opinion.--Pethr (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If people are more interested in her First Lady years or her Senate career or whatever, that's fine, the ToC allows them to skip right to that section. Same as the chapters in a real biography, not everybody reads those cover to cover either. Hillary's college years were very eventful compared to most politicians', and real biographies of her spend a lot of time on this period. In any case, I've removed the quote from Bill, on the grounds that it was said much later rather than at the time and that actions can speak louder than words. I've also removed the 'apartment in Berkeley' detail from living together in California, which doesn't change the picture. So it's still there, but a lot shorter than before. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

AP

Hi Wasted Time R, I will reply here as it is about the article and not any sort of dispute or whatever. The point about AP is that they don't publish the story. The content is changed (edited) before published on other websites and in fact many stories or parts of them come from syndicated sources without any acknolegment on Wikipedia and rightly so. There is no reason to mention AP as a publisher because they don't publish the story, it is not part of their work or periodical and their author is correctly cited when known. It is in fact a mistake to leave it this way. If you were writing an academic paper you would either find the original stroy on AP website (which may not be possible) or cited author and publisher of website where you have found that information. The same applies to Wikipedia. May be I'm missing something, please tell me what you mean. Thank you for all the work on this article! I think it can be made into FA with a little more work.--Pethr (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I (and other editors, per the Template talk:Cite news discussion) want both AP and the publisher to be mentioned. An AP article has a different flavor, goal, and set of possible biases from the publisher. NewsMax is an especially important case (many of their stories are so slanted we can't use them as WP:RS), but the same goes for the New York Times and everyone else. That's why I use the construct "Associated Press for MSNBC" or "United Press International for The Washington Post". Wasted Time R (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
But it isn't like that in the article. If source isn't reliable don't use it. They can and do change AP story no matter what is written there. They can edit out whole sections of articles, give undue importance to other parts and reword anything. There's no point of giving credit to AP when you cite unreliable source - quite the contrary - you are giving undue weight to unrelieble source. It should be something like AP article (re)published by Somebody.--Pethr (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Their license with AP does give them rights to modify articles, but in practice, usually articles aren't spun like you're describing. It's still a legitimate concern you're raising though. I'm happy to change "AP for X" to "AP republished by X". I wish AP kept online archives so that we could reference their originals, but they don't. There's ap.google.com that has original AP stories, but it purges out after a week or two and alas can't be used well here. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I might look into it and find non-syndicated sources. It would be better anyway. I'm fine with AP republished by X but it isn't exactly up to me. It should be discussed on some wider scale to obtain some consensus. Would you be willing to raise it on Template talk as you mentioned earlier? It isn't standart way to do it but it seems right - or not wrong in any way. Thank you.--Pethr (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As I think more about it, it would be better to drop the "re" - AP news story published by XY - it is probably published for the first time on the affiliate's website or at least it isn't important whether it was published before that.--Pethr (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The consensus on Template talk:Cite news seemed to be that both should be mentioned, but there was no question as to how. And part of that discussion revolved around which parameters of the "cite news" template to use ... and remember that the "cite" template isn't mandatory either, many people just free-form it. So I think we'll be fine with whatever we decide, and "AP published by X" is fine with me. In fact I'll change some other articles I've done to use that too. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You should use publisher because there is no reason for this to be in italics. Also there should be "AP something published by X". otherwise it would probbaly looked strange in the ref: Time, Wasted. How to cite AP in Wikipedia, Associated Press published by MSNBC.com, 2007-12-14. Retrieved on 2008-04-26. I'd insert there something as news story or article... It doesn't make sense without it - it would read like author but author needs to be before the title and AP isn't the author, somebody wrote it.--Pethr (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
In recent years, sometimes AP does give an author credit (the Beth Fouhy SCHIP story, for example), so we can use that if it's there. I think "Associated Press published by MSNBC.com" reads okay and doesn't need anything extra; we can see what others say. And once people follow the link and see an AP story on some other publisher's website or story archive, they'll understand what the cite meant for sure. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania primary

I thought she only won by about 8.5 points, not 10.

funny, considering that she said she HAD to win at least by at least 10 percentage points to stay in the race. so she's just being stubborn.

[editorializing elided] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.41.51 (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Pa. Dept of State results so far, the margin was 9.2 points, which is what an addendum on our cite already says. I've changed the article to say "almost 10 points", since that was the popular perception. And no, she never said she had to win by that margin to stay in. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the fact is that she won by 9.2 points, shouldn't Wikipedia state that rather than the weasel worded "almost 10 points"? Given that she has incorrectly claimed, "I won that double-digit victory that everybody on TV said I had to win, and the voters of Pennsylvania clearly made their views known -- that they think I would be the best president and the better candidate to go against Sen. McCain"(CNN cite) we should take care to report the facts rather than incorrectly exaggerate her margin of victory, particularly given that she has made an incorrect claim on the topic. --207.109.76.194 (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Poll results almost always round up to the nearest integer (in this case, 10), although I agree that it gives a misleading result. The media still continues to say that Clinton won Texas, when in fact she lost it by the only relevant measure (pledged delegates). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
What is happening here is that the percentages are Clinton 54.6%, Obama 45.4%. Normal rounding rules take those to 55% to 45% respectively, which is what for example CNN reports it as, and thus a ten-point spread is the general perception of what happened. Also note these results aren't certified yet; the final tally might be closer to 10% or not. Tersely reporting on primary results in the section has been a legitimate difficulty for us throughout the campaign. While general election results are simple (somebody won, somebody lost), primary results are a mixture of popular vote, delegate results, expectations spin going in, and perceived momentum coming out. (And caucus results are even worse. And Texas, a bizarre combination of both, is worst of all.) The bottom line is the Pennsylvania was perceived as the solid win the Hillary needed to keep going on, and that's what we're trying to get across in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
And so .... we can expect a revert to 9.2 once it is certified? What you've done was round the Clinton number up and Obama number down ... and then take the difference - a classic illusion in high school mathematics. Oxfordden (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just changed it to "by 9 points". The extra 0.2 points will be given to Hillary detractors as a gift. We aim to keep everyone happy here! Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasted Time R - that's reasonable. Thank you! Oxfordden (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Invite to Town Of Rhodhiss

I Wayne Wilson A Town OF Rhodhiss Commissioner would love to Invite you to our very small town with the big heart. We have a lot of history that I belive would be of interest to you. For one the first American Flag on the moon material was woven here at the old mill. In 1982 the Mills shut down . However the town has survied and will keep going . This is a town of less then 900. That helps one another when they need something . A town that stays as one . The town was found in 1901 by George Hiss and John Rhods . They started the Mill town with one mill on the Caldwell county side . In 1916 they built a second Mill on the Burke county side of town . You just need to log on to the Town of Rhodhiss web site and you will see a lot of great things past and Now . Thank You Commissioner Wayne Wilson 828-443-6503 or wwilson@roosterbush.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.118.225 (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do The Name "Vincent Foster" Strike A Familar Note?

Why no mention of Vincent Foster and his strange death?Erectile Dysfunctional (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Vince Foster is mentioned in connection to the removal of files matter, for which HRC was investigated: "Following deputy White House counsel Vince Foster's July 1993 suicide, allegations were made that Hillary Clinton had ordered the removal of potentially damaging files (related to Whitewater or other matters) from Foster's office on the night of his death.[171] Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigated this, and by 1999 Starr was reported to be holding the investigation open, despite his staff having told him there was no case to be made.[172] When Starr's successor Robert Ray issued his final Whitewater reports in 2000, no claims were made against Hillary Clinton regarding this.[173]" The fevered dreams of conspiracy theorists who see a role for HRC in Foster's death itself are not mentioned here, although they are alluded to in the Death of Vince Foster article, which covers such theorizing. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The following new section was just added to the article:

Hillary Clinton has described herself as a Methodist[1] and has stated the Methodist church she attended as a youth gave her the opportunity to expand [her] horizons".[2] For fifteen years she has been part of a secretive religious group called "the Fellowship", whose congregants consist of heavy political players. The group was established in the 1930s by a Methodist evangelist named Abraham Vereide and is currently led by Doug Coe. In 2005, TIME Magazine named Coe as one of the 25 most powerful evangelicals, calling him "the Stealth Persuader."[3][4] In 1993, journalist Jeff Sharlet went undercover to learn about the Fellowship, who he described as "secret theocrats" and as having "traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries" and various dictators. Sharlet quotes Coe as saying, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't", and says that the group's leaders "consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride". In her autobiography Living History, Hillary Clinton described Coe as "a genuinely loving spiritual mentor" who "became a source of strength and friendship" for her during her more difficult years as first lady.[5][6][7]

  1. ^ http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/327623.aspx
  2. ^ Mark Preston, "Hillary Clinton talks religion", CNN, 26 June 2006. Available online. Archived.
  3. ^ Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet , "Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics", Mother Jones, 1 Sept 2008
  4. ^ http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/4.html
  5. ^ Jeffrey Sharlet, "Jesus plus nothing: Undercover among America's secret theocrats", Harpers, March 2003.
  6. ^ Andrea Mitchell and Jim Popkin, "Political ties to a secretive religious group", NBC News, 3 April 2008. Avialable online. Archived.
  7. ^ Joshua Green, "Take Two: Hillary's Choice", The Atlantic, Nov 2006, Available online. Archived.

I've followed up some of the sources, and I have to say that I find the above account rather misleading. All the more so as the same NBC article that is the main source for the above (to the extent in fact of being plagiarized) also includes the following: "Asked about Coe’s influence on Hillary Clinton, people close to her told NBC News that she does not consider him one of her leading spiritual advisors. They added that Senator Clinton has never contributed to Coe’s group, is not a member of The Fellowship and has never heard the sermons obtained by NBC News. And, they said, Doug Coe is not Hillary Clinton’s minister."

I suggest a revert. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted. This is a typical campaign-time edit meant to land her in the same trouble that Obama is in from Jeremiah Wright. The article already mentions, in the "Role as First Lady" section, that: "from the time she came to Washington, she also found refuge in a prayer group of The Fellowship that featured many wives of conservative Washington figures.[119][120]". That's sufficient weight given to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, hold on there a moment. It sounds like what you are doing is bowlderizing. And, to try to avoid trouble, it sounds like what Clinton's "people close to her" were doing is backing away from statements Clinton herself made earlier. There is a contradiction here between Hillary earlier and those "close supporters" later! The contradiction needs to be described. The whole section should not be simply removed. Cryptographic hash (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is not a place to describe The Fellowship or Doug Coe or investigations of them; we have the The Family (Christian political organization) article for that. This article is not a place to describe minor campaign controversies, if this even qualifies; we have Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 for that. A separate "Religion" section is not appropriate for this article; her religious influences are already dealt with during the appropriate chronological sequences in the main biographical text, and we should continue along those lines. At most, at most, this merits a footnote here in this article, after the part where we talk about her participation in the D.C. prayer group, to elucidate her relationship or lack thereof with Coe. Look at the rest of this article; that's how we deal with minor biographical asides or controversies like this. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I neglected to mention that the article also already included her participation in the Senate prayer breakfast: "Upon entering the United States Senate, Clinton maintained a low public profile, built relationships with senators from both parties[193] and forged alliances with religiously inclined senators by becoming a regular participant in the Senate Prayer Breakfast.[121][194]" That's where I'll add the footnote. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have done the above. So what we now have, in the main bio part of the article as is appropriate, is:

[in Role as First Lady] from the time she came to Washington, she also found refuge in a prayer group of The Fellowship that featured many wives of conservative Washington figures.[121][122]
...
[in Senate First term] She forged alliances with religiously inclined senators by becoming a regular participant in the Senate Prayer Breakfast,[121][194] led by Douglas Coe of The Fellowship.[195][196]
[in footnote 196] Clinton described Coe in her 2003 memoir as "a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide" and "a source of strength and friendship" during her First Lady years. Clinton's associates distanced her from Coe in 2008, saying that Clinton was not a member of The Fellowship and never contributed money it. They also said that Clinton had not heard sermons Coe gave using Nazi and Communist leaders as examples of gaining commitment.

The same cites that the "Religion" section was using on HRC's relationship with The Fellowship — Mother Jones article, The Atlantic article, NBC News story — are being used here. This is the right way to do it, in the context of how this article works, as I've explained above. I've thus removed the "Religion" section; it's now partly inappropriate (describing Coe and the fellowship) and partly superfluous (now that the main bio material covers HRC's relationship to them). Wasted Time R (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is bowdlerization. Take and remove the details - and the contradiction - to a footnote where few will ever see it. Nice try. Cryptographic hash (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It is an appropriate treatment for something that is a very minor biographical point at best. How much press attention has it gotten? Very little. You may wish this were some big controversy or scandal, but it isn't. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
As evidence of this, a Google News search for <Hillary Clinton Douglas Coe> returns 4 hits, and the <Hillary Clinton Doug Coe> variant returns 2 hits, for a total of 6, none from any mainstream media outlets. A Google News search for <John McCain John Hagee> returns 327 hits. A Google News search for <Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright> returns 17,680 hits. Obama-Wright is a big story (fairly or not), McCain-Hagee is a minor story, and Clinton-Coe is barely any story at all. Even giving the Coe matter a footnote in this article has been generous. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Looking at all edits on this matter, I'm out of reverts ... hopefully others will weigh in. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedias bios are here for notable people, and NOTABLE information regarding them. The media hasn't covered any of this except in passing, no large or credible organizations are talking about this, there has been no incident. Adding that content doesn't make sense any more than adding her shoe size or a clip of her laugh. Just because the media has talked about it (again, not much) doesn't make it noteworthy. Stop smearing, and try to be useful. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A follow-up: User:Ewenss, who added this "Religion" section, User:Cryptographic hash, who argued for it here and did reversions to it, and User:CyberAnth, who did additional reversions to it, have all turned out to be one big sockpuppet and have been indefinitely blocked. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

As of 5-8-2008 8:10p.m. there was picture of a walrus in place of Hillary's Picture... Please someone look farther in to this76.26.73.193 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Jonn1234

This vandalism was fixed within 2 minutes of its placement. Unfortunately, we have our share of idiots coming here to make work for others - but it never lasts too long. Tvoz/talk 00:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears that more vandalism has occured in section 10

Main article: Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors LESBIAN!!!! Clinton has received over a dozen awards and honors during her career, from both American and international organizations, for her activities concerning health, women, and children".

This word does not belong in this section. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history, you'll see that a vandal-fighting bot reverted this within a minute of it appearing. You were just one of the unlucky ones to see it in its unreverted state. Another argument for stable versions ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

West virginia

93% in, shes beating obama by 40 points, wow. We need sources for that. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 04:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been added. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheers.--Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on, WP biographers of "Hillary"

The Barack Obama series
v • d • e
Early life and career · (Memoir)
Illinois Senate career
U.S. Senate career
2008 presidential campaign
Political positions

This biography of Hillary's list of subarticles

(viz., Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors, and List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton)

---lacks an initial installment about the

Early Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton

without which it cannot gel into a sequential series analogous with the ones for Barack ------ >

The life of John McCain
v • d • e

Early life and military career
House and Senate career, 1982–2000
2000 presidential campaign
Senate career, 2001–present
2008 presidential campaign
Cultural and political image
Political positions

---and Mac. ------ >

Yet, since the constituent articles in so very many series are actually more nonsequential than not (as in, e/g, -Effects of the Sept. 11 Attacks, -Perpetrators of the Sept. 11 Attacks, -Victims of the Sept. 11 Attacks, etc.), maybe the existing components of "Hillary" subarticles are sufficient to merit their comprising a series. Any feedback?  — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of us don't want those early installments. They get very low readership, and they are a constant maintenance headache to keep in synch with the main article. And not to be critical of other editors' decisions, but offhand I fail to see why anybody's time in a state legislature requires a separate article. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Full dislosure: I'm an----ultra miniscule----donor to Barack's campaign. Still, his state legislative experience, which to-date time-wise comprises the majority of his political career, seems of interest in relation to his future actions as at least one of the leaders of the Democratic party----if not "the leader of the free world." (And as for a HRC series: since readers seeking, say, to look up her prez campaign, which has substantial readership, likely come to her general HRC biographical article first, a series box would augment user friendliness by placing a convenient wikilink to whisk them over there.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Obama's state legislature career deserves coverage in WP, I'm just questioning whether it merits a separate article. As for Hillary navigation, you come to the main article, you see "Presidential campaign of 2008" in the Table of Contents, you click that, you can either read the short version there on the spot, or click the "main article" link to Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and read the long version. That's how WP:SUMMARY navigation works in the vast majority of articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:SUMMARY says:
  • "[...] Longer articles are split into sections, each about several good-sized paragraphs long. Subsectioning can increase this amount. Ideally many of those sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopic covered in that section[;... yet, e]ditors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic [...].
  • Unless all sub-articles of a "Summary style" article are truly compliant to the common names principle, it is a good idea to provide a navigational template to connect the subarticles among themselves, and with the "Summary style" main article.[...]"
So,
  • yes, there is allowed to be disagreement among editors as to whether any particular biographical article's sections, such as the one for BHO's Illinois political experience, passes the notability test for a split off into a subarticle;
The Hillary Rodham Clinton series
v • d • e

United States Senate career, 2001–present
Campaign for the Presidency, 2007–2008
Political positions  · Awards and honors
Books about Hillary Clinton
  • nonetheless, as these guidelines clearly indicate with regard all biographical articles including those for Mac, Barack, Hillary and others where each has produced multiple subarticles with unwieldy names thus comprising a series, editors are encouraged to uniformly construct for each a navigational template (comprising in each case a link to its main article followed by links to constituent sub-articles). As here. ------ >
 — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Which brings us to where we've got to make a decision: (Next section... ) — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat replicated Rodham Clinton nav boxes

Readers of main articles habitually look for series' navigation template towards the articles' upper right, yet the Rodham Clinton biographical series includes two somewhat replicated navigation templates, one that is specifically for the series towards the upper right and another one that is more inclusive of more tangential links as a banner along the bottom. Perusing the example of a main articles cited at WP:SUMMARY, World War II, for guidance, we see at the upper right a navigational template linking to its constituent subarticles, while there is also a template at the bottom of World War II containing all the WP articles about the many World War II military campaigns. However, as its example of a navigation box to subarticles, WP:SUMMARY gives the Isaac Newton biographical series, whose only template specifically related to Newton is a sidebar nav box towards the upper right.

So, if we're to be guided by both WP informal practice and its formal guidelines, we can choose to either

  1. include more links in any one of these McCain, Obama, or Rodham Clinton sidebar navigational templates (making one or another of these articles' bottom-banner templates superfluous); or else
  2. follow the example of the World War II main article and keep all "series templates" at upper right (limited to only each series' actual subarticles), reserving templates along the bottom as basically "omnibus templates" (whose constituents would be allowed to be more peripherally related). — Justmeherenow (   ) 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

where's "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"? Paul VS Clinton

I think this is the largest scam of all president families, even though Bush cheated on his election either. Many media report and several rounds of court involved! they even had a website for this case: http://www.paulvclinton.com/ and many Youtube video for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.12.36 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You can think anything you want, but the American legal system doesn't agree with you. This is covered in United States Senate election in New York, 2000#Hollywood fundraiser, since that was the election it pertained to. Note that Hillary's finance director was acquitted of the FEC charge, and that the part of the civil suit that was against Hillary was dismissed by the court, and the dismissal was upheld by an appeals court. So basically, this is a frivolous legal action, something that America is famous for. That's why it doesn't merit inclusion in this main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a cousin to Angelina jolie

I saw on Google.com that Hilary Clinton is a distant cousin to Angelina Jolie 9th cousins once removed to be exact I mean thats what the Google website said anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that supposed to make Jennifer Aniston feel better or worse?

I don`t know? and plus what does Jennifer care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Clinton's photo

Enlarge here→
Enlarge here→

Does anyone else consider the current choice of photo unflattering? To me it has the deer-in-the-headlights look of the end of a long photo-shoot---emotionless eyes above a tensely-held Pepsodent smile. There are surely more flattering photos of her than that in the public domain, though if the lapel pin is a requirement that might narrow the choices. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree I think I better picture should be out there. it just needs to be found. if you find one post it on here and lets see what people think about it. Magnetawan (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Slow down of Wiki (and blog) activity?

I have seen a noticable reduction in posting activity on blogs and this Wiki page regarding the 2008 Democrat primary. Thank goodness. The folks were getting way too dramatic and passionate for quite some time. Maybe ... just maybe ... we can begin discussing the national issues instead of posturing ... but then again ... I still believe in the tooth-fairy ... but "there is always hope" (Aragorn, LOTR) ... Oxfordden (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unique Position

"In the 2008 presidential nomination race, Clinton succeeded in winning more primaries and delegates than any other woman in U.S. history." How many other women have run in primaries as a presidential nominee? The entire introduction needs citation as it smacks of her campaign... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.217.196 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The style of the article is to not use footnotes in the lead section, because everything stated in it is repeated later in the body of the article, with cites there. There have been a number of women who have run for President of the U.S. Shirley Chisholm in 1972 had the highest nomination totals until Hillary, with 152 delegates and, depending on your definition, one primary win. See Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_11#Shirley_Chisholm_was_the_first_woman_to_win_a_primary_in_1972 for more on the latter. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wasted Time R!

thanks for helping with this article... and you got in the Star Ledger... and at least one Wikipedia editor noticed :) — Rickyrab | Talk 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this article would be trash without his efforts, to be honest. My family thinks I'm nuts for spending so much time editing the Barack Obama biography, but Wikipedia needs steady, neutral hands to keep things running smoothly. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks ... and I think the "family thinks nuts" bit is a universal reaction! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Zero mention in this article of lawsuit Paul v. Clinton ?

Why is there zero mention in this article of the lawsuit Paul v. Clinton, Clinton's involvement and dealings with Peter F. Paul, and the controversy surrounding Gala Hollywood Farewell Salute to President Clinton ? This should be covered, probably in at least a paragraph or so. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's covered in one of the subarticles linked to from here, United States Senate election in New York, 2000#Hollywood fundraiser. It doesn't merit inclusion here because Paul's lawsuit against Hillary was a nuisance lawsuit that was thrown out of court for lack of evidence and other grounds. Yes, Paul made a YouTube video, but as far as the American legal system is concerned, there's nothing here. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The lawsuit itself is still ongoing. It deserves at the very least a sentence or so mention in this article. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
If there have been further developments in appeals regarding Paul v. Clinton, they belong in the Paul v. Clinton article; that's why it's there. As of now, though, the lawsuit is only ongoing against Bill, not Hillary. Doesn't merit inclusion here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes but she was a named party and there has been some media coverage surrounding this. Deserves at the very least a brief mention and explanation of the Gala Hollywood Farewell Salute to President Clinton and controversy surrounding that event. (Moreso on that event perhaps than the lawsuit itself) Cirt (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The Gala was part of her 2000 Senate campaign. It's described included in that article. Due to space constraints in this main article, the section on the 2000 Senate campaign here is a very short summary of that, that leaves out a lot of important developments that got a lot of press coverage at the time. Such as: Moynihan's lukewarm support for Hillary; Hillary falling behind Giuliani in the polls and getting baited by him; her kissing Suha Arafat blunder; her Yankees hat blunder; her rebound to go ahead of Giuliani in the polls; the Whitewater IC reports coming in late in the campaign; and an analysis of her victory margin. All these are covering in the campaign article but not here, and all of them are more important than the Gala and the frivolous lawsuit that followed it. The main article has to make choices based on importance and biographical relevance, and this just doesn't qualify. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

New senate portrait image usable?

Mailaccount added Image:Hrcofficial.jpg to the article, Bobblehead reverted on the grounds "Image pixilated and out of focus. Looks like it was blown up from a thumbnail.", Mailaccount added again, I reverted, now TiusP has put it back in again. I'd be fine with using this image if it were of passable quality, but I agree with Bobblehead that it isn't. Other opinions welcome. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hrcofficial.jpg is completely unusable for this article, because the quality is dreadful. I'm amazed, frankly, that the original source is of such a poor standard. I don't see what is wrong with the existing image. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If the image was of higher resolution, I would not be opposed to using the image, but the resolution on the image is unbelievably low and it just looks like crap. I have no idea why anyone would claim it was a better image, personally.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 21:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
On her campaign website, this is referred to as the "official headshot" (not a reference to sniper fire, I hope) but I still think the existing image is better. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Image:Hrcofficial.jpg from "Senate election of 2000", where it was last placed, per this discussion. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

image of Clinton's signature

Just so everyone knows, I downloaded the image of Clinton's signature, tried to remove the JPEG artifacts, and enhanced the image. I was bold and overwrote the original file, as I felt that there was no way that my enhancements would be controversial. I then reconsidered and posted this here to see what you all think. My version is in the article now. If you think my alterations are not an improvement, please say so, and I will see if I can fix them. Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 00:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

11 or 12

"After Super Tuesday, Obama won the eleven remaining February primaries and caucuses.[85] Obama and Clinton split delegates and states nearly equally in Vermont, Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island.[86]"

This is a section taken from the obama page, ive raised the issue there too. Im quite sure Obama won vermont before the others were called for Clinton, technically, for an hour or so, obama had a 12 consecutive lead. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a distinction worth making. Technically, a network "calling" a race has no effect on who actually wins. Who knows which order the election officials of Vermont or Rhode Island announced their results, or even which step of the announcement/certification process should be counted. The streak should only cover primaries and caucuses held on prior days and weeks. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Delegates counted

The delegates from F and M have been counted, with a few mathematical adjustments to ensure Obama keeps the delegate lead. Clinton gets quite a lot more delegates than obama but it wont be enough. That means however she now takes the lead in the popular vote. We can get the sources together and decide how to word it all. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The usual source on the popular vote is this RCP page (which doesn't yet reflect today's actions). There are still going to be many complexities: Do you cut the Florida pop vote totals by half, like the delegates were? Do you allocate the Michigan pop vote in the concocted percentages that delegates were, and then cut in half, and give Obama much of the uncommitteds? And of course, all the popular vote totals rely on estimations in some of the caucus states. I've think you're being optimistic that there's going to be any clear verdict on the popular vote or anything that we can succinctly state here in the main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
We will have to see how it plays out, FOX news indictated that the popular vote will be counted in full. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sexism in article compared to Obama's

Being a true greenhorn to this process of editing and even submitting, I am leaving a comment based on my comparisons between the Obama Wikipedia page and HR Clinton Wikipedia page: Just bare with me, as I jump in to say, I notice the same subtle forms of sexism throughout culture when looking at the lives of most men and women that seems to survive over time. The contrast of information emphasis makes for shocking observation. Yet, the point valid to consider here is that as a woman, Hillary's individual behaviors, remarks, appearance, things of this nature are examined within a resource, from which many have come to expect a lucid and socially conscious standard. Hillary fulfills an active political and legal career(s) that deserve examination based on her professional accomplishments by the same standards assumed to provide in the examination of Obama's career. Has anyone talked about his eye color? His height? Has anyone examined his remarks as socially unacceptable? Looked at whether he bakes, what he dresses, or how his hair is styled? In other words, Hillary's professional life is looked on as a noun; an object with not too subtle hints of negativity. Where as Obama's professional life as been assumed to be viewed in action; as a verb! Can you all reexamine any and all unconsciously conditioned assumptions and the motives for those assumptions? If nothing else, this sort of willingness to self-reflect can continue to reveal a professional depth at Wikipedia that has earned respect. This is the first time that I have experienced such glaringly unacceptable disparity in the treatment of subject matter. I put to you all then, in information gathering and assembling for reference, it is not about unchecked obsession of personalities or one's deep-seated, subjective reactions to such, now is it?```` Cette façon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cette façon (talk • contribs) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, don't confuse what's on this Talk page with what's actually in the article. The article itself doesn't say anything about her height or her eye color, for instance. The article does talk about her hairstyles and general appearance when First Lady, because it was the subject of much media and popular discussion at the time. Whether that's fair or right is not for us to decide; we describe what happens to a political figure, whether it should or not. As for your remarks about how the two professional lives are described as nouns and verbs, I don't see what you see. You'd better give two or three specific examples of sentences describing their professional lives, to illustrate this "glaringly unacceptable disparity". Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)