Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Early Life

I'm guessing that she wasn't born a Clinton. Someone want to throw in a bit about her maiden name? --Dante Alighieri 10:02 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Rodham? Or is that some kinda English female name too? --Menchi 10:04 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... I always just assumed that was her middle name... OK, I just looked it up. That is her maiden name. She was born Hillary Diane Rodham. :) --Dante Alighieri 10:12 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

FL of United States

Notice that her own widely-read book is not mentioned in References. And look at the reference that is there. Who's behind all this elaborate smear? "Anti=semitism"? Accused by whom? why? I wouldn't edit this entry on a dare... [[Wetman}

I agree - I also think this run-on should be deleted, but fear editing it. "The state and nature of their marriage has been the subject of much speculation, with some claiming it is a purely political arrangement and widespread stories about their regular arguments, but the fact remains that they have remained together (and whilst spending extended periods apart still vacation together, apparently) long after the political necessity for the marriage to stay together passed." I think it's repetitive of the sentence before, and somewhat inappropriate. Piha 17:21, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

US Senator==/== Senate Election (2000)

Question: has Hillary done anything noteworthy as a senator yet? --Robert Merkel 01:09 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)

I did try to include a header on this, but it was removed by Salazar. This does need research & inclusion. --allie 12:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It says in the article that she campaigned heavily in Upstate New York. She campaigned in heavily Democratic areas of New York, like Albany, but the traditionally Republican areas in Upstate New York really didn't have a candidate: Lazio is a RINO; he likes government-run social programs, he supports abortion, he's antigun, etc. I remember reading in the Press & Sun-Bulletin (a Binghamton-area newspaper), that her campaign aides had determined that downstate was such an easy sell for her, that she only needed around 30% of the vote in Upstate. (I think she got 32% or so in my county

Wolfman, obviously I don't object to the editing in principle, and you and I have made some opposite kinds of edits to other political articles, with an appropriate degree of attention to NPOV, but I think with respect to your changes to my Senate section Edit, you kept the facts I inserted that were favorable to Sen. Clinton (ie, "Two-thirds of the voters dismissed the carpetbagging issue,") but removed much of the factual information that portrayed her in a negative light (specifically, the objective fact that she returned a $50,000 campaign donation from the Muslim group accused of terrorist connections, and the kissing of Arafat's wife). These events actually figured into the campaign and they are actual facts, not POV. And I was careful I thought to avoid implying that these events were evidence of anything (which is a POV), I just stated the fact that they were part of the Republican attacks on her, which is objective. I'd appreciate some reply but I'll give it some time before attempting to revise my section. Kaisershatner 16:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page moved

See [1] --Jia ng 01:37, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

This page doesn't mention Whitewater or her role in the health care plan, two of the things she's most famous for. Also, some of the prose is fairly fawning; e.g., "the two were soon inseperable--partners in moot court, political campaigns, and matters of the heart". Needs a neutral party to go over this and add facts, NPOV. I don't know enough to do it. Meelar 19:55, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again, if you feel it is NPOV, add the White Water and healtcare section. It is not that hard, it is on the Bill Clinton page.

ChrisDJackson

Well, as I said, I don't really know enough about this topic, I was just drawing attention to this for others who might be able to help the article. Meelar 20:03, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of this page. Do I know enough to fix it? Not really. But even so, you have no right to remove the header. Thank you. Meelar 20:19, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please do not remove the Neutrality Dispute header. I'm in the process of finding people to correct this, but you have no right to remove it. Meelar 21:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Signature

I removed Hillary's signature from the page. If it's going to be re-added, at least put it off to the side with a caption. As it was it looked like an attempt at making it look like she signed the page. But since I'm not sure her signature is relevant in the first place, I removed it rather than fixing it. anthony (see warning) 21:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naming the husband

Bill is not a "cowboy name", it's just the more common form. Clinton himself goes by Bill in his everyday life; when he signed legislation, he signed with Bill; our article on him is at Bill Clinton, with William Clinton as a redirect. In light of all this, I've changed it back. Cordially, Meelar 15:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

check white house website

Yes, that's his formal name, but he is universally known as Bill. If you and Clinton were at a party and you yelled, "Hey, William", he wouldn't know who you were referring to, while if you yelled "Hey Bill", he would turn and acknowledge you. Bill is the far more recognized form, and should be the form used in the article. It's the form the man himself goes by, I seriously doubt he'd be offended. Meelar 20:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

i don`t care how did monica lewinsky called him but i know that if i do a search of white house website for bill clinton i will find nothing except william redirection. so he has nickname BILL but officially his name is William. We can even say that bvut not just bill because this is not a party this is encyclopedia. Avala 10:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name. His most common name is Bill. Jimmy Carter's most common name is Jimmy. We use what they're known as. RickK 10:10, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

i thought this was serious project!

Perhaps you don't know how names work. You see, many people have longwinded formal names, and short forms that are universally used as their actual name. For example, Tony Blair, the current Prime Minister of the UK, is actually named Anthony Blair: Tony is a nickname for Anthony. It would be ridiculous to refer to him as Anthony Blair however, because that's not the name he uses except in overly formal settings. --Delirium 23:45, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Master of Science?

I've just done some googling, and the only reference I can find to Hillary having a master's degree is wikipedi and its fork. Official bios only mention undergrad at Wellesley and Yale Law School. Any source for this? Radicalsubversiv 22:54, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Her official website, perhaps? BTW...the one in which she refers to herself as...Hillary RODHAM Clinton, and not Hillary Clinton? BTW...am digging to do some serious attempt to correct the Future? section. This is really questionable in terms of NPOV. Best regards, allie 00:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thsi comment pertained to an earlier version of the article which stated that she holds a Master's degree. Her official website makes no mention of her holding such a degree, nor does any other reference source I can find. RadicalSubversiv E 01:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that her degree from Yale is a J.D. which stands for Juris Doctor. This is what Yale (and other schools) call their normal three year law degree which is called an L.L.B. at some other places. Perhaps the unusual name caused some confusion at some point. Morris 02:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

reversion

hi, i reverted your last edit to hillary clinton. the edit summary was 'speculative & pov'. i don't mean that you are actively attempting to insert pov, and later wished i could edit the summary. but you can't. what i really objected to was the phrasing 'liability' not 'controversial'. as to speculative, i suppose what i really object to is the whole section. it seems bizarre to dedicate a section about a possible run by someone who has no stated intention of running. Wolfman 02:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. You have a point that the whole section is speculative, but that's hardly grounds to revert my edit in particular. And I stand by my phrasing: the point is not that she necessarily is a liability, but that she could -- indeed almost certainly would -- be seen as one in some circles. If the article is going to cover the presidential speculation (and offer language bordering on POV praise), it ought to make this important point about it. RadicalSubversiv E 06:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As it turns out, you were right on the mark with this particular point. She is indeed perceived not only as a liability but a threat "in certain circles." That her intentions are not clearly stated by Clinton herself is not the point. Other people have stated this for her. Her own viability as a candidate is already considered a real possibility, and that is not speculative. Furthermore, what's "bizarre" about a politcal candidate who states that he/she has no intention of running for an elected office? Front-runners do it all the time. Radicalsubersiv was absolutely correct on this point. If anything, this paragraph will be continually updated with time. allie 15:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep it in the controversies section unless someone wants to pull out some noncontroversial sentences to form an independent section. luketh 02:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

smear?

can we perhaps attribute the comment to a particular party then? are we also allowed to repeat the prominent criticism (also without strong evidence) that Bush is a cokehead? the Clinton is a rapist? that Bush got a girl pregnant and paid for her abortion? may I drudge up unsourced speculation as to Reagan's relationship with Nancy (and there is plenty)? Is this a rumor-mongering operation or an encyclopedia? Wolfman 18:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm necessarily attached to that particular phrasing, but I believe the criticism to be a significant part of that leveled against her. I say this because it frequently comes up in conversations with friends of mine who aren't as supportive of her as I am. It's an urban legend, yes, but a significant one that many people nonetheless attach to her, and one that we'll be unable to conclusively address, except by stating her public actions and statements. I believe the information should be included in some form. Respectfully yours, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:36, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I am not opposed to it being mentioned somewhere, possibly in a 'slander' or 'rumours' section which would be more politely titled. But, here are my concerns:

it can't possibly be rebutted as it is pure speculation with no evidence
it is completely unsourced
it is out of place in the First Lady section -- whether she loves her husband has nothing to do with that role, that's a 'home life' issue.
she herself has stated since the Lewinsky thing that she & Bill love each other very much.
it's absurd to report every rumour of this type about every politician. in my experience, things of this nature simply don't get included in other articles about politicians.
right-wing nuts also believe she ordered the murder of Vince Foster, does that go in too? There's also an article accusing her of infidelity in newsmax, how about that?
be aware that i'm not attacking you personally as POV for including this, i know your reputation for fairness. Wolfman 21:54, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind comments; I'm glad that my best efforts at neutrality appear to be working out. As for your comments, I think the difference is that this is speculation is often made; for example, a portrayal of it was included in Primary Colors (an excellent book, incidentally), which is hardly a right-wing rag. The fact is that confronted with the facts of their married life as we know them, this is a common speculation for people to make; what's a neutral way for us to include this in the article?

On a minorly related note, I feel the article could in fact use some expansion as to why she was so controversial; being too young for most of Clinton's presidency, I pretty much missed out on the accusations of murder and so on. The article could definitely use more about why she inspired such hatred; in the Presidential Bid section, it says "At the same time, she remains a controversial figure, which might reduce her attractiveness as a candidate", but from the rest of the article, this is not clearly explained. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:31, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I would have no problem with a 'controversy' section. I think putting it in that section automatically makes it more NPOV. As to speculation about real love in their married life, frankly it's none of our business. What does it have to do with her importance? Just put in the known facts: he's a serial cheater, she stood by him. People stand by their cheating spouses all the time out of love, not political ambition. See the forums at SurvivingInfidelity for hundreds of raw & painful examples. As to why some initially took such a dislike to her, from my memories as a grad student in the early days, it was basically that she was treated as an equal, a modern woman entrusted with responsibility as an advisor. That played very, very poorly among traditional elements in the South, where I grew up. Wolfman 03:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hillary and Walmart

Added a link to the Village Voice with an article about her connection to Wal-Mart, which adds light to her attitude towards the working class. The content of the article could be summarized for the wikipedia article. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0021/harkavy.php Whyerd 13:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that some mention of her connection to Wal-Mart needs to be mentioned in this entry. Also, not mentioned in that Village Voice article was her role in Wal-mart's attempts to get an exemption from federal minimum wage laws. User:GiveBlood

Changes to Senator Paragraph

This sentence is at the bottom of the paragraph, recently added:

While a fundraising event in August 2000 allegedly cost more than $1.2 million, the indictment said, Rosen reported contributions of about $400,000, knowing the figure to be false.

I am not sure what this means. How can a fundraising event *cost* $1.2 million? Do you mean...it *raised* $1.2 million? Did Rosen report his *own contributions of $400,000, or did he pad the numbers? What citations, please? allie 15:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Senate election results

I have just removed:

Ethnicity also played a factor: Clinton won 54% of the Jewish vote and more thab 89% of the African-American vote.

Ethnicity plays a factor in all American elections, and Democrats almost always win these kinds of majorities about Jewish and African American voters. Unless we're going to include a full breakdown of the vote by demographic subgroups, which strikes me as unnecessary, I think this kind of statement only serves to make POV insinuations about "ethnic" voters and Clinton's victory. Also, we need to cite a specific exit poll for: "over two-thirds of voters dismissed the 'carpetbagging' issue as unimportant" RadicalSubversiv E 06:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC

Re: exit polls. That's all probably a matter of public information, I would assume. Unfortunately, my handy-dandy Encyclopedia of New York City, which contains just that sort of info, is dated 1998. Any ideas? Re: "carpetbagging: I just feel it's important to keep the "carpetbagging" issue in perspective, in ordr to retain NPOV as well.

As far as her contributions to the two Legislative Sessions, it's on her website, but this is NOT my field of expertise, and the Adobe Version is giving me a headache. Care to take a stab at it? Many thanks. allie 07:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll do some searching for the exit poll data. It was probably reported in the Times after the election. Her legislative record is a trickier subject -- ironically, Congressional websites aren't the best source for this information, because our congresscritters are so good at exaggerating their own importance in virtually everything. RadicalSubversiv E 07:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Huh. All I know is that her Adobe Acrobat is giving me a headache. Do I need to read about the Syracuse Basketball Team? Many thanks. allie 07:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

my oops re: citations. allie 08:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Noticed you already tracked my editing changes. Thanx for reverts. The exit poll data is listed in the citations (which I conveniently deleted yesterday, thank you very much). Much more careful about listing all editing & summaries, if you noticed...hope that helps. Done for the day. Best Regards, allie 19:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Controversies & Hillary Clinton

At this point, there are certainly plently listed in this article. However, they're all over the place, and not necessarily in order. Whitewater pops up while she's in Arkansas, when it was actually more relevant in the context of when she was First Lady. How about a new section, "Controversial Issues" in a chronological format? Name it any way you want - but it's beginning to look like a better way to approach it for the sake of formatting the article. Any comments? In addition, I did try to include something about her contributions as Senator, but the headings were deleted. Certainly, there is something that can be summarized to retain a NPOV??? allie 01:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

restored the sub-heading part and clarified because it doesn't relate to her official duties as First Lady of Arkansas. Salazar 03:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It looks great, don't you think? Can we do this kind of sub-heading for the remainder of the article? There are so MANY contributors that it might provide a logical method to maintain a cleaner overall format, similar to the Margaret Thatcher page (there's a study in contrast, but strictly in terms of article format...) And btw...the reference to her brother and a "medicine man" is vague, at best. If it was indeed worthy of note...it should be clarified and some cite, yes? Many thanks, allie 18:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MERC

MERC isn't a starndard abbreviation - it doesn't link to any of the exchange sites/which one? Chicago or New York? Thanks. allie 20:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article says A gay icon is a popular culture entertainer.... Senator Clinton is many things, but I don't think that it would be accurate to call her a popular culture entertainer. I believe that many people in the gay community have voted for her, but because of her policies (progressive policies, in favor of civil liberties for gay people) not because (as far as I can tell) any of her strictly personal qualities, so I disagree. Morris 21:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) P.S. I think that by nature, this is a somewhat subjective category, so I'm not sure it's a good idea at all, but that's a different question.

Why are references "Hillary" instead of "Mrs. Clinton"?

Looking at other articles, this one seems unique in that most of the references to the subject just use the first name. I am thinking of changing all of the sentences that start "Hillary..." to start "Mrs. Clinton...". Does anyone have any other opinions? Morris 20:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I changed most of them to either "Ms. Clinton" or "Hillary Clinton" if other Clintons (like her husband) were also mentioned nearby. Using just the first name does not seem to be supported by the Manual of Style. Morris 20:03, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hillary on Walmart Board of Directors

Why is it not mentioned anywhere that Hillary Clinton was on the Walmart Board of Directors while down in Arkansas? I think this is an important pieice of information and I know know if it has been left off because of the distaste her party, the Demcratic Party, has for Walmart or it was just a general over sight? --Nick Berardi 15:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Senate Race Margin

If course Clinton's margin in the 2000 election was a disappointment. A significant percentage of Democrats who voted for Gore as President voted against Clinton for Senate. What was predicted was that she would win by a margin similar to Gore, she failed to achieve that - falling well short of the margin. In reality, she should have finished ahead of Gore since her opponent was not very well-known and a last-minute replacement.--JonGwynne 03:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are flat-out wrong. Even though New York State votes solidly for Democrats in presidential races, our races for governors and senators have a different dynamic. Look at how Sen. D'Amato won three terms! Gov. Pataki won also won three terms, the last two in landslides. Hillary did not have the power of incumbency. How can you say Hillary was expected to finish ahead of Gore?! Find me a predicition that said that Hillary was expected to win by a margin similar to Gore. I looked. This is what I found: Preliminary surveys already demonstrate that this race will be among the most closely contested campaigns in the country. From the early 11 percentage point lead Clinton enjoyed in February (53 to 42 percent) has come a race that now is deadlocked. A late March, 1999 survey by Marist College gave Clinton a 48 to 45.5 percent advantage over Giuliani, while a late April, 1999 poll by the New York Post puts the Mayor ahead of the First Lady by 46 to 42 percent. A confidential White House survey in May showed the First Lady leading Giuliani by only two percentage points, according to a May 20, 1999 NBC News report. Again, you are just flat-out wrong. --Justy329 14:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact remains that a significant number of Democrats voted for Gore and against Hillary Clinton. This would, in any normal situation, be considered "disappointing". However, on reconsideration, I think that may be unnecessary POV and so let's just settle on reporting the difference in outcomes.--JonGwynne 18:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Show me ONE other wikipedia article on a senator that shows the margin of the presidential candidate along with their margin. I don't think it's needed to compare her margin with Gore's margin at all. --Justy329 21:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Considering the partisan nature of the 2000 election, the questions about Hillary Clinton's political qualifications and the manner in which she ran for office, it seems especially relevant.--JonGwynne 23:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This comparison is intended to make a point unrelated to Hillary. If the margin is meant to be portrayed as large, compare it to another Senate race. The intent to inject commentary is clear here and I still see no case FOR including it. plain_regular_ham 18:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It isn't meant to be anything but a comparison to the number of votes that the Democratic presidential candidate got. Considering the partisan nature of the race, it is noteworthy that a singificant number of Democrats voted for Al Gore for president but against Hillary Clinton for Senator. --JonGwynne 00:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It actually is not signifigant. The margins of senate candidates are often different that the presidential race during the same year. Clinton won NY in a landslide in '92, yet D'amato got re-elected that year. Schumer won with like a 40-point margin compared with Kerry's 18-point win in our state. New York has a Republican Governor and Republican Mayor of NYC. It's not like our state is solidly Dem for all offices- only on presidential level. --Justy329 03:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It *is* significant for several reasons, not the least of which is the question of "carpetbagging" which is already mentioned in the section. Some people didn't feel it was an issue for them, others did. It didn't cost her the Senate seat obviously, but it was responsible for her losing a significant potion of the Democratic vote to her rival. BTW, Bill Clinton's margin in 1992 was *far* from a landslide - he won New York by 43.05% to Bush's 37.45%. 5.5% isn't a landslide by anyone's definition. Yes, New York has had Republican Mayors for major cities and has elected Republican Senators/Representatives, but it is still noteworthy that in an otherwise partisan election, almost 10% of New York Democrats put aside their partisanism and voted against Hillary Clinton. --JonGwynne 04:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Ummmmm. You're wrong. Bill did win New York in a landslide in 1992. 49.7% to 33.9%. I'm sick of arguing with you. But, get your facts straight.--Justy329 01:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright. You have explained the point in these last few discussion entries, but the chosen comparison is not ideal in my opinion. Why not show New York's general support for Democrats (Missing in Hillary's numbers) by speaking of Charles Schumer...

"In 2004, Schumer handily won re-election against Republican Assemblyman Howard Mills of Middletown and Conservative Marilyn O'Grady. Schumer outpolled Mills, the second-place finisher, by 2.8 million votes and won reelection with 71% of the vote, the highest ever for a Senator's election in New York." plain_regular_ham 13:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Prefixed-Style of Formal Address

Per current Wikipedia policy, as claimed by jguk to have been adopted by a prior consensus, I am prefixing the formal style The Honorable to the present biographical entry. Do not revert this edit unless you can dispute the existing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) policy regarding Honorific Prefixes, and the entry on Style (manner of address) containing examples.

Please note that it is my preference that the prefixed style not be used, however if it is used in some cases (such as for The Right Honourable Tony Blair) but not for others (such as Senator Hillary Clinton) then this may constitute improper POV by the Wikipedia community. Because of the existing division of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this policy, a survey is currently being conducted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles in which I encourage you to participate. While the same style should be applied to all sitting Senators and Representatives, I am trying not to make a huge number of edits while the survey results are pending. Nonetheless, it is presumed current policy and should be observed until changed. Whig 07:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The MoS guideline does not apply in this instance. Hillary Clinton does not have a style in the same way that a British Privy Counsellor. You are comparing apples with pears, jguk 12:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. In my experience, it is proper to refer to a United States Senator as "Senator <name>" but the honorific "The Honorable" seems only to be used in direct, formal written correspondence. In other words, if you are writing a letter personally to Senator Clinton, you would address it to "The Honorable Hillary Clinton" and then the salutation in the letter itself would read "Dear Senator Clinton". There doesn't seem to be any precedent I can find that has the honorific used outside of direct, formal correspondence.--JonGwynne 22:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

JonGwynne misses the point of my example above. "The Right Honourable" would be used in formal address to Tony Blair, but if you were writing a letter to him, you would almost certainly use the salutation, "Dear Prime Minister Blair". There is really no difference here at all. Whig 07:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Except there is a difference. In the US, the honorific "The Honorable" is only applied to US Senators in formal, direct correspondence and not in articles written about someone. --JonGwynne 07:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

No difference in the world. The honorific "The Right Honourable" is applied to Tony Blair in formal, direct correspondence, and otherwise called "Prime Minister" or even "Mr. Blair." Whig 08:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Didn't you just contradict yourself? First you say that if you were writing a letter to him, you would almost certainly use the salutation, "Dear Prime Minister Blair" and then you follow it up with The honorific "The Right Honourable" is applied to Tony Blair in formal, direct correspondence, and otherwise called "Prime Minister" or even "Mr. Blair." So which is it? It is pretty clear that this article isn't private correspondence to Senator Clinton, so why would the honorific for private correspondence be used? --JonGwynne 16:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk's fundamental misunderstanding is that he believes that formal styles of address are specific to certain monarchical systems, and that they are not used in the United States and other parts of the world. He is incorrect. The US does not have Titles of Nobility but we do have formal styles of address which are not only conventional but in some cases absolutely mandatory. For instance, when addressing a judge in a courtroom, referring to him other than as Your Honor could result in a contempt citation. Whig 07:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Addressing a judge as "Your Honor" is not mandatory. You may just as properly address the judge by their actual title or their title+surname... i.e. "Judge" or "Judge Smith".--JonGwynne 07:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In court, it isn't done unless as a third-person reference to another judge. Direct address is always Your Honor. If you've never been in a courtroom, you might not know this, but the judge will tell you to address him properly or he will hold you in contempt. And even outside of court, unless you are on a personal first name basis with the judge, you never address him without prefixing "Judge" to his name (unless you intend to express disrespect and are particularly stupid, because you might find yourself before that judge someday).

I have been in many different courts (traffic, family, civil, criminal) and I have seen many judges addressed both as "Your honor", "Judge" and "Judge <lastname>" and never once seen someone held in contempt for not using "your honor". --JonGwynne 14:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

And even considering all of this, it does not make even a slight difference from the example of Tony Blair, who might even be referred to casually as "Mr. Blair". Whig 08:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Vince Foster Controversy

The Vince Foster section was wholly removed with the following comment; "one-sided speculation that's covered in depth in the vince foster article)".

The reader should not be completely deprived of any mention of the controversy for this reason. Providing mention with less emphasis (no longer an independent section) and link to page with more detail is appropriate per Gamaliel's comment. I have made it so. plain_regular_ham 14:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

From last edit by Gamaliel, "if we must include foster, let's be accurate and not rely on AIM's conspiracy theories"

Despite the conspicuous omission of Miguel Rodriguez, who resigned from the investigation and his statement; "I knew what the result was going to be, because I was told what the result was going to be from the get-go." [2], I am done here. I expect that this is as close to a compromise as I will get. plain_regular_ham 20:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, there is no harm in linking to the Miguel Rodriguez interview as long as it is not in the text of the article. See links. plain_regular_ham 20:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. Now rotten.com links are relevant, but interviews reported by AIM are not? (per Gamaliel) Why am I not feeling that logic? As for the requested explanation of why the Foster case is relevant at all (per JonGwynne), one needs only read the linked materials. The statements being made here are, "Some People Say {X}", as the references clearly do.

I am seriously considering a hiatus from editing subject pages in favor of pursuing an agreed upon standard for what constitutes relevance or authenticity in a link or citation for a given template type. The floating standard is very frustrating and will certainly result in pages that "suck". When I find an existing standard or create one, I will provide a link to it. If anyone knows of an existing standard and can save me some searching, I would appreciate it. plain_regular_ham 14:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. I have located the nearest thing to a standard for external links here. This should be considered the authoritative answer for what should or should not be included. If the answer is unclear after reading When should I link externally, the standard should be discussed and agreed upon at the Talk:When should I link externally, then documented on When should I link externally. Then the standard should be applied to the subject page if necessary.

I believe that the current standard is unclear regarding clear Categorization/Title or both. The current page also contains discussion on the main page which should be moved to the discussion page, leaving only the agreed upon standard on the main page. I will be working on this. I am also off to look for some baseline on what constitutes relevance or validity in a citation. plain_regular_ham 16:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. Wikipedia:Verifiability is more clear. I will refer to it in discussions of verifiability. General relevance will be the trickiest topic. Will have to maintains discussions of same where applicable. plain_regular_ham 16:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I have update the Foster references. I think that they adhere to all existing standards. plain_regular_ham 17:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Excised text

Mrs. Clinton's brother Hugh Rodham obtained presidential pardons for Carlos Vignali, Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell, sparking a controversy in some circles over the money Hugh Rodham received for the deal.

If this is relevant enough to warrant inclusion, it will need to be given context and explanation. Who are these guys, what did they do, and why is it mentioned here? The sentence seems like it would fit better in Hugh's article. Mr. Billion 08:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

First Lady of Arkansas

==Picture++ This does not look like a picture of Hillary to me, Ms. Lewniski should be on her own page. 20 May 2005

This Page Sucks

This page reads like a nightmarish post from freerepublic.com. It is a whole page of Hillary-bashing. As a reputable encyclopedia, how can we talk about Vince Foster or other non-issues raised by the Right-Wing Conspiracy. Her 10-point landslide win is even told to be not acceptable because it was less than Gore's margin. That's hogwash.

Why don't we talk about how Hillary fought for teacher testing as first lady, or spoke out for woman's rights in China, or worked to expand children's health coverage, or her tireless work on the Armed Service Committee, or the 20 billion dollars she helped secure to rebuild after 9/11? Her poll numbers are through the roof!! She has a 69% approval rating and a 49% approval rating among NY Republicans.

My point it, this page is mostly untrue, unfair, negative attacks on Sen. Clinton, rather than an objective look at that work that Hillary has done throughout her life. I will attach a NPOV to this article, as I want the whole article re-written.

I will not re-write it myself because I admit that I'm not neutral. I love Hillary. That's why I urge Right-Wing members to not edit the page either. We need someone who is fair and honest to do so. --Justy329 01:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has a bias, but we try to put them aside when we work on articles. As long as you're honest about your biases, you should be able to work on the article along with everyone else, so please don't let that stop you. Gamaliel 02:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a lifelong Democrat, I don't have a problem with this page. Like it or not, Hillary Clinton is a controversial figure - even among Democrats. This article isn't meant to be a puff-piece concentrating on her positive achievements and ignoring her controversial side. I submit that your objection to it is precisely because it tells both sides of her story - not just the cheerful, sunny side. I do agree with you about the Vince Foster entry though - there is nothing in it that establishes its relevance to this article. I'm going to remove it. However, you're wrong about the discussion of her victory margin, it is perfectly relevant to discuss it given the question of "carpetbagging" and the partisan nature of the 2000 election, it is appropriate to mention that a signficant percentage of New York Democrats voted against her. Also, her victory can't really accurately be described as a "landslide" - I think "foregone conclusion" is a more appropriate descriptor. The question wasn't whether she was going to win but by how much. --JonGwynne 16:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I have reinserted the section on the Foster controversy. It is far from irrelevant.

There is nothing mentioned in it that makes it relevant to this article on Hillary. If you want to mention Foster, explain how discussing him relates to Hillary. --JonGwynne 03:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

As for the election margin, as I mentioned before, why not refer to a valid comparison such as the other NY senator; "In 2004, Schumer handily won re-election against Republican Assemblyman Howard Mills of Middletown and Conservative Marilyn O'Grady. Schumer outpolled Mills, the second-place finisher, by 2.8 million votes and won reelection with 71% of the vote, the highest ever for a Senator's election in New York."

Mention that too... but the comparison to the Gore/Bush margin is also relevant due to the nature of the campaign. --JonGwynne 03:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't this seem more relevant to Democratic Senate election margins in New York? plain_regular_ham 19:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Hillary's 2000 win was not a foregone conclusion during the campaign; many observers thought that Lazio had a decent chance to beat her, due to Hillary's high negatives and the carpetbagging issue. After the debate where Lazio "invaded her space", she pulled ahead by a bit, but it was still expected to be fairly close; the 10 point margin was a surprise ("late deciders" went for her). I adjusted the wording to (succinctly) reflect this; I left in the Gore/Bush margin as well. Comparison to Schumer 2004 would be spurious, because he was running for reelection again a poorly-funded, no-visibility opponent, whereas Lazio was very well-funded. A better comparison might be Schumer's defeat of a well-funded and incumbent D'Amato in 1998, which was also done by a 10 point margin. Since the GOP can't find any strong candidate to run against Hillary in 2006, it looks likely that she'll repeat Schumer's 2004 re-election margin then. Wasted Time R 03:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? Not a forgone conclusion? How many millions more registered Democrats are there in New York than registered Republicans? Add to that a last-minute subsitution of a relatively unknown and inexperienced Republican candidate - the outcome of the election was never in doubt - even among the upstate conservatives... On a purely personal note, I was doing some work in the Monroe County area during this time and had the opportunity to not only see the local media coverage of the election but talk to people on both sides of the issue. Not one of them seriously thought that Lazio had a chance. --JonGwynne 06:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Dems have a built-in advantage in New York state, but D'Amato and Pataki overcame it multiple times, so it can be done. Here are four stories from July through November 2000 that all indicate the race was even or with only a slight lead for Clinton: [3], [4], [5], [6]. I could dig out more, this is just a sample from googling. Another useful perspective is to look at the Quinnipiac polls over the course of the race, at [7] (scroll down to 2000). As late as October 31 it's too close to call; only on November 6 does it break for Clinton. So if I put back in the text about her winning margin being greater than expected with all these links attached, will you let it be? Wasted Time R 12:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because they're moderate, New York Republicans who know how to appeal to Democratic voters and independents. Hillary is not from New York and the carpet-bagging issue, while it obviously didn't cost her the race, was on a singificant number of voters' minds. As for the articles, the first one is a broken link. The second does not support your point at all... it is from early in the race (the debate hadn't even happened yet) and all it says is that "polls indicate the race between Lazio and Clinton in November will be close" - which it was; relatively speaking. The third is simply an editorial from a pollster; not only that it actually hurts your argument as the main point of the article is the gap between support for Gore and support for Hillary Clinton. Saying her winning margin was greater than expected is an opinion and, as such, has no place in an encyclopedia article. Her margin is what it is... large enough for her to claim victory and yet notably smaller than Gore's; which, in a partisan election such as the one in 2000, is unusual. --JonGwynne 17:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm pulling out the Gore/Bush comparison, because it is just one piece of analysis of Clinton's campaign, and since you refuse to let any of the other pieces in, this doesn't belong either. You've already said that the carpetbagging issue hurt her but didn't prevent her election, both of which we all agree are true. Leave it at that, in the spirit of consensus, compromise, etc., ok? Wasted Time R 17:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you want to add more comparisons/perspective, feel free to do so. But the Hillary Clinton/Al Gore comparison is relevant and should stay in. The fact that editorializing wasn't allowed in doesn't affect that. --JonGwynne 22:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've restored some of the previous material (that was NPOV) and added more comparisons. No doubt you'll yank it all out. Since you are the de facto owner of this article, I won't argue it further. Wasted Time R 01:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, JonGwynne pulled out almost all of the data points that were unfavorable to his argument, left in all the data points that were favorable, and in a fine example of intellectual honesty labelled the change a "copyedit". I'm outta here. Wasted Time R 11:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, "just for the record"... I did nothing of the sort. The only thing I removed was a completely unnecessary statement of the obvious - that Democrats who lost to Republicans didn't do as well in elections as Democrats who defeated Republicans. Not only obvious but irrelevant to any argument that anyone could possibly make. Removing it would, therefore, be accurately described as editing. --JonGwynne 16:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will remove my NPOV tag, as someone added a description of her senate career. that's all I wanted. --Justy329 15:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives