Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 3

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

Controversies section soft-pedals many serious issues

Usernames add no particular value; as they are of course anonymous by nature. Being who I am, my IP address is static (rather than DHCP or PPPoE), such that it iteslf serves as an identity. I don't honestly care whether you, Waste, treat me seriously or not; your inability to provide objective content is again obvious.....and readers are of course to choose freely for themsleves....that is, after all, the point of the exercise. I don't mind your partisanship....I do mind your inability to label partisan content as such. Your mindless assertions otherwise are of course unadulterated twaddle....but, hey, you have to be you don't you? By the way, to your last sentences, content IS NOT yours to include or otherwise....you can keep reverting if you choose, and I will just keep on reinserting....such that the truth can become known. You are much too much in love with your own reportage, and you seem to believe that that itself is again, the point of the exercise. Wrong.

You may think your IP address is static, but your previous contributions and first comment were under 69.153.53.123, while your two most recent comments are from 69.153.58.34. Wasted Time R 23:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that the controverseries section is accurately descriptive of Clinton. Indeed, this soft-pedals many, many serious issues....and is highly biased in my current view. Reported controversy and conjecture, properly labeled as such, is entirely appropriate content. [22:57, 16 December 2005 69.153.53.123]

If you look at this article, 69.153.53.123, you'll see that it's currently got 109 inline web cites and another half-dozen or more inline book cites. So the deal is, nothing that's inserted without a valid cite stays in. So, your contribution about "mysterious deaths" is just a rehash of a "conjecture" that has been thoroughly debunked at http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm and is thus junk. Your contribution "Needless to say, Mrs. Clinton's overarching ambitions to achieve the Presidency will not be modulated by the public" made no sense, and did not stay in. Finally, your contribution about a mathematical analysis of her cattle trading outcome likelihood was potentially interesting, but lacked a cite, so it's gone too. You've got to work a bit harder if you want something of yours to stay in the article. Wasted Time R 02:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Your thoroughly liberal bias in favor of Mrs. Clinton is obvious, and highly out of order. Needless to say, anyone who knows how to read sees through your nonsense, and your mystical support of this woman, despite the objective nature planned for Wiki is beyond comprehension. The mathematical analysis was in fact my own, and given both of my doctorates I feel quite qualified to perform it. Your comments in conclusion are noted, and believe me, having published 1000+ articles in the referred scientific literature, are met with some amusement. I will, of course, replace my writing, and will indeed engage a member of my staff to continue to do so. Your placement as an individual within the "top 1000" is doubtless a matter of pride to you, but achieving such through your machinations is hardly ideal.

A couple of words of advice. First, if you want to get taken seriously in Wikipedia, you have to get a user name, and not write as an "anon". May not be fair, but that's how it is. Second, you need to read up on Wikipeda rules — they expressly forbid including the results of "original research" that hasn't been published; see WP:NOR. Again, may not be right, but it's their website not ours. Third, unless you've tracked through my history of contributing to this article, you have no idea what my biases are. In reality I've added plenty of pro-HRC material, anti-HRC material, and just plain HRC material, and I've gotten hammered from both HRC lovers and HRC haters in the process.
So, regarding your math analysis of HRC's cattle trading, if you can make that your 1001th published referreed article, then I'll be happy to include it. I spent some time looking on the web for something along those lines, and found a reference to a Marshall School of Business Marshall Magazine article abstract about the win rate of her positions, but couldn't find the article body. A couple of partisan sites refer to a The Journal of Economics and Statistics article that claims her outcome was a 250M-to-1 shot, but I can't find any publication of that title, so I suspect the cite is made up. If you know of anything published in this matter, let me know or include it yourself.
Finally, regarding my "placement in the top 1000", I have no effing clue what you are talking about. Wasted Time R 23:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversies and Trivia

The controversies section is getting a bit out of control. Let's try to tighten it up, listing the essential controversies without overwhelming the article. luketh 22:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a Trivia section, an idea that we discussed a long time ago, and that we implemented for some time. There was some disagreement over it a few months ago, but I think everyone will agree that some of these sections are just good-humored fun and don't belong in a Controversies section. If they are to be in the Controversies section, then they need to be controversial. luketh 22:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree they don't belong in the regular Controversies section, since they don't bear on political, legal, or ethical matters. We used to have a section called "Cultural issues" or something like that, which most of them involve. Somebody changed it to "Additional information", which is useless. I also object to "Trivia"; to me, anything that is trivial doesn't deserve to be here at all. So some name for this section needs to be found. Wasted Time R 22:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Trivial information can be fun and it can give insight into a person's character. But....you're the more persistent one, Wasted, so make the changes you want. I guess this is probably a wasted sentence, but try not to trash Clinton too much. She's a great political figure. luketh 23:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the fun/insight, I just don't like calling it "Trivia". I've named this section "Cultural matters" for now. It's important to keep these items out of "Controversies" since they don't rise to that level of seriousness. As for trashing Clinton, let it be known that I'm the person who created the "United States Senator" section; before me there was nothing about her work in the Senate. I'm also the person who created the "Awards and Honors" section. I'm not out to trash her or to venerate her, just to tell her story. Wasted Time R 23:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The "United States Senator" and "Awards and Honors" sections were good ideas. Certainly better than the rumor and gossip in the Controversies section. Not all sections in the Controversies section are rumor and gossip but some definitely are, e.g., Book Deal, Hasidic Pardons, Vince Foster. Did you see the interview by Jimbo on CNN? He had to shut down a page because the subject of the page complained that his page was filled with rumor and gossip. To keep Wikipedia viable, we need to make pages that will not be shut down for too much rumor and gossip. luketh 05:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Those items you mention are common allegations made against her. The Wikipedia article can either remain silent on them, and have casual readers wonder if they are true and have partisan editors occasionally add in bits saying that they are true, or the article can discuss and refute them, and thereby inform the casual reader and preempt the partisan editors. The latter course seems to me to be clearly preferable. Wasted Time R 12:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I spoke too broadly here. A lot of lurid things have been said about HRC's personal life that are not in the article, nor should they be. I think the that Black Panthers (which you tried to take out), Book Deal, and Hasidic Pardons subsections are all legitimate subjects, since they deal with ethical issues and (in the latter two) questions of the public trust. The Vince Foster subsection, on the other hand, concerns lurid allegations with no basis in reality, and I wouldn't be adverse to its removal. Wasted Time R 15:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable compromise. luketh 05:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I do agree with your removal of the "Clinton's voice" subsection, that was very weak. Wasted Time R 12:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me say again that your work on this page has been quite good. luketh 05:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghost Writer

Do you realize how many books are writen by ghost writers? Rush Limbaugh's book, Nancy Reagan's book, etc., etc. SHOW ME ONE OTHER ARTICLE ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE THAT MENTIONS WHO THE GHOST WRITER IS?! You seem to have one set of standards for everyone else's wiki. But, for Hillary, you are attempting to slander her with unimportant information. Every goddamn book has a ghost writer. It needs not be pointed out JUST for hillary! --Justy329 15:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dude, relax. If you want to mention ghost-writers in other articles, then feel free to do it. Hillary's book was ghost-written, that is a fact. You can't argue against mentioning it just because other people have published ghost-written books. I have one standard: if a book is ghost-written, then that fact should be mentioned.--JonGwynne 02:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I was so emotional in regards to my last reply. It's just that I need to protect Hillary from the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Again, I feel that the fact that you mention her ghostwriter is politically motivated. Please provide with links to other wikis that include the ghost writers of famous people who are not writers by trade. I will attach a NPOV tag until you provide me with links to wikis that include the NAMES of ghost writers. --Justy329 03:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's be clear about a few things. First, whether or not there are other mentions of ghost-written books is irrelevant. The fact remains that her book is ghost-written and therefore it is appropriate to mention this. Second, I didn't originally mention the ghost-writer. In fact, I didn't even know that she had ghost-written this book before I read it here. Third, I'm not a member of the right-wing conspiracy, I'm much farther to the left that Hillary could ever be. Finally, what's this about a POV tag? As I said before, what other articles say or don't say doesn't change the fact that Hillary used a ghost-writer for at least one of her books. I suspect they're all ghost-written. She wouldn't be the first politician to use a ghost-writer. I'm still trying to figure out why you think that's a bad thing? Can you imagine if she'd tried to write it herself? Yikes. At least she has the presence of mind to realize she isn't a writer.--JonGwynne 06:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Fine. But, I will spend every waking hour looking up the names of people's ghost-writers. I already know the name of Limbaugh's. Let's see if they delete it there. --Justy329 17:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Good. That's what Wikipedia is about... more information. Look up all those ghost-writers and "out" the people who use them. Personally, I think everyone who uses ghost-writers and doesn't credit them on the cover is scum. Ethical celebrities and politicians who use ghost-writers have the decency to credit them on the cover. "My Story, written by X and Y" (where X is the name of the lazy and/or semi-literate celebrity and Y is the name of the ghost-writer). That's how it should be done. Shame on everyone who doesn't do it. But that's just my opinion.--JonGwynne 20:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
BTW, now that this is settled, I assume I can remove the tag...--JonGwynne 04:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Would, at the very least, a "co-" be appropriate? I can only assume that the ghostwriter did not write the book entirely on her own. --24.26.132.35 11:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the names of ghost writers should, indeed, be mentioned on all entries relating to ghost-written books. This is an encyclopedia. The ghost writer's name is information that belongs there (and ghost writers don't often get credit for their work). Gary D Robson 20:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

All reputable sources say that Feinman merely transcribed the book from audiotapes developed by Senator Clinton for It Takes a Village. This doesn't match the definition of a ghostwriter. Are there credible sources to say that Feinman did in fact ghostwrite the book? luketh 9 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

You don't hire a writer like Barbara Feinman and then pay her $120,000 to transcribe audiotapes. I quick Google search reveals that Clinton herself acknowledges that Feinman ghostwrote ITAV. [1]
Noooo, what your http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=833&id=623352003 cite says is this:
Mrs Clinton is reported to thank three "ghost-writers" for "invaluable assistance" writing her memoirs. When It takes a Village was published in 1996, she was criticised because there was no mention of a ghost-writer, Barbara Feinman, who was paid £80,000 for her work.
The point of the quote is that she didn't and apparently still doesn't acknowledge Feinman. The assertion that Feinman was a ghostwriter is being made by the author of the article, not by Hillary. Wasted Time R 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
What Hillary does or doesn't acknowledge herself isn't really relevant. This isn't a hagiography, it is an article about a public figure. The fact that Clinton uses ghost-writers is relevant. The way the article reads now, it gives the impression that Clinton wrote those books herself. That is clearly not true. Therefore, the article is currently inaccurate and should be corrected. Besides, your argument is invalid on its face. A person isn't criticized for not giving credit to a ghost-writer unless they've actually used a ghost-writer. Stephen King isn't criticized for not giving credit to ghost-writers. But then, he writes his own books. Hillary Clinton does not.
I haven't found any objective, conclusive statements as to how much HRC wrote of either book. Political figures are expected to use outside assistants for help in writing books, magazine articles, etc., since they aren't professional writers like Stephen King and have neither the time nor likely the talent to write a whole book on their own. Did HRC exceed the normal bounds of writers assistants in these two books, enough to make it notable for this article? What is your evidence? Wasted Time R 16:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no question that Clinton used ghostwriters. The only issue seems to be whether this should be mentioned in the article here and I believe it is. Yes, it is not uncommon for politicians to use ghost writers but not all of them do (Jimmy Carter for example). In addition it is customary for those who use ghostwriters to credit them on the cover of the book (John McCain and Colin Powell to name just two). Therefore, it is noteworthy that Clinton used ghostwriters. It also also noteworthy that she broke from tradition and refused to credit them. It is also factually inaccurate to claim that Clinton "wrote" the books.
You say there is "no question" but give no cites. You claim she refused to credit anyone, but she did give three assistants credits on Living History in the acknowledgements. You claim she didn't "write" the books but refused to give a definition of how much help results in "writing" something becoming false. Have you even read Living History? Parts are good, but it's too long, with some sections filled with mundane details that only HRC could know about or care about. No ghostwriters thought those parts up! Wasted Time R 17:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
She didn't credit the ghostwriters on the cover of the book where it is customary to do so. Dr. Jerri Nielsen followed tradition when Voller ghostwrote her story about battling breast cancer in Antarctica. Clinton refused to do likewise. This is noteworthy - even though it may embarrass Clinton's admirers. --SpinyNorman 17:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
By definition, a ghostwriter isn't credited with writing or co-writing a book. That's why they're a ghost! People who are credited on the cover are co-writers, not ghostwriters. Wasted Time R 17:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
That's simply not true. You're apparently under the mistaken impression that the "ghost" part of the term ghostwriter implies that they're not supposed to be known or get credit for their work. Sometimes they don't, that is true, but they are traditionally credited on the cover. --SpinyNorman 15:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Spiny, but you're the one who's wrong. The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition: ghostwriter A person who writes for and gives credit of authorship to another person. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary: ghostwrite to write for and in the name of another; to write for another who is the presumed author. These definitions make clear that the McCain-Salter co-authorship situation does not involve a ghostwriter; by definition, a ghostwriter never gets cover credit. Wasted Time R 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
That's just not true. I come from a family of writers and I have known a few ghostwriters. I have experience with this subject. Do you? --SpinyNorman 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It's possible that within your family's circle you use "ghostwriter" loosely to mean all professional writers who help non-professional writers get books done, and that your loose term encapsulates assignments where co-writing, or "as told to", or "with the assistance of" type cover credits are given. But that is not the dictionary definition, and is thus not the definition that a Wikipedia article should use. Wasted Time R 17:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not the only one. The Forbes article used as a reference in the section does as well. Sometimes ghostwriters recieve a "co-author" credit, but that doesn't change the fact that they're ghostwriters. And what's this crap about it is "her detractors" who say that ITAV was ghostwritten? The ghostwriter herself says that she ghostwrote it. Or do you consider her a "detractor" as well? --SpinyNorman 17:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The Forbes article doesn't support what you claim. For example, it contains this sentence: "Writer David Fisher, who has ghosted or cowritten 15 bestsellers, ..." again making clear that when you get a co-writing credit, you're not a ghostwriter (on that project, of course you may be on other projects). Wasted Time R 18:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
No, that's what you *think* the Forbes article says. In fact, it contradicts your position. The section you quote doesn't say what you think it does. It doesn't say that a ghost-writer and co-author are two different things, it actually says the exact opposite. A ghostwriter is the person who writes a book for someone who has more fame than writing ability (or helps them do it in the case of people who have some small abilities in that area). Saying a ghost-writer is a co-author is simply describing the type of credit they get. --SpinyNorman 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
By the dictionary definitions I quoted above, a ghostwriter cannot be a co-author. You are continuing to use "ghostwriter" in the loosest definition possible, to describe any professional writer who collaborates with someone famous who can't write a book on their own. That may or may not be the definition the Forbes article is using, but either way it doesn't supercede dictionary definitions.
It would be more accurate to say, by your interpretation of those dictionary definitions. The fact remains that at least two of the women who collaborated with HRC on her writings have been professional ghostwriters. Of those women, both of them have had other books published in which they collaborated in a manner substantially similar to HRC and they were credited on the cover of the book. This is the crux of the issue. The fact remains that the term "ghostwriter" means a professional writer who works with someone who has a story to tell but hasn't got the writing skills to tell it. Just because someone uses a ghostwriter, that doesn't make them a bad person. In some circles (including politics) it is practically expected for someone to use a ghostwriter. The controversy surrounding HRC isn't that she used ghostwriters but that she tried to pretend that she didn't. If she had published "It Takes A Village" with the credit "by Hillary Clinton with Barbary Feinman" or "... and Barbara Feinman"; or "Living History" with the credit "... By Hillary Clinton with Maryanne Vollers, Alison Muscatine and researcher Ruby Shamir", we wouldn't be having this discussion. --SpinyNorman 03:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The dictionary definiton of "ghostwriter" is unambiguous and corresponds to my interpretation. However, it may be that the popular usage of the term has changed in recent years; the Easterbrook article is certainly using it the same way you are. It seems oxymoronic to me (the "ghost" part is rendered senseless), but that's the way it goes in the real world. Wasted Time R 04:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
In any case, the original point is that you claimed most ghostwriters get cover credit, such as with the McCain book, and that Hillary not giving cover credit on Living History is therefore notable. I don't believe that assertion is correct either. Ghostwriters are in it for the money, and usually the best they can expect is a coded acknowledgement of their help in the frontmatter; the McCain case is the one that's unusual. If you want, we can survey every book published by a sitting Senator and see how many had co-writing credits (you can be sure that all of them were at least partly ghosted, because no sitting politican has the time to really write one). I believe such a survey would verify that what Living History did is entirely appropriate and in accordance with industry and political norms.
I don't think I said that "most" ghostwriters get cover credit. I think I said that it is customary to give them cover credit. To do otherwise is at best disingenuous. It implies something that isn't true - that the person who paid the ghostwriter actually wrote the book. Also, I think you're on dangerous ground when you say "If you want, we can survey every book published by a sitting Senator and see how many had co-writing credits (you can be sure that all of them were at least partly ghosted, because no sitting politican has the time to really write one)". Are you seriously suggesting that no Senator in the history of the US has ever written a book unassissted? I'm not sure how you'd even go about getting a list of every book ever written by a US Senator. You think that no one was ever elected to the Senate who was a competent author? When you say "I believe such a survey would verify that what Living History did is entirely appropriate and in accordance with industry and political norms", all you have to do is look at John McCain's book to see an example of how HRC's actions differ from what you call "norms". I don't have a comprehensive list of books written by Senators, but I can say that I would apply exactly the same standard to all of them (Democrat or Republican) - if there was a Senator who published a ghostwritten book with only their name on the cover and was criticized for doing so, I'd be perfectly happy to write a section in their wiki article describing these facts. In fact, I'll make you a deal - if you want to create a separate category for "Books written by U.S. Senators", I'll keep an eye on it and make sure that any dodgy dealings with ghostwriters are duly noted. Deal? --SpinyNorman 03:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It certainly didn't used to be customary to give ghostwriters credit. And yes, the whole idea was to be disingenuous! Many a campaign biography or quickie memoir was published that way. And yes, I am suggesting that no sitting Senator – at least in modern times – has ever written a book unassisted; they simply wouldn't have the time. Writing a book is hard, long, tedious work! If they did that, they'd be one lousy Senator. Retired Senators, on the other hand, may well have written their own books; that's a whole different situation. I have the feeling that cover credits for ghost/assistant writers is a recent phenomenon of the last 10 or 15 years. It would be an interested study, but it would take a good deal of time to do, and Wikipedia prohibits original research anyway. Wasted Time R 04:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Where HRC screwed up was with It Takes a Village, because first the White House publicly announced ahead of time that Feinman would be assisting, and then the book came out with zilch acknowledgements. Feinman wasn't looking for a cover credit, but just some inside consideration, and when she didn't get it she went public. So I have no trouble with this article saying as much about Village, but I strongly disagree that there's anything amiss with Living History. Wasted Time R 04:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Then there was the story that when the publisher had leaked to the press that Feinman had been the ghost, that HRC was upset by this and demanded that Feinman's name be removed from the book. --SpinyNorman 03:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:NOR (see also WP:V, WP:CITE) —BorgHunter (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you consider Forbes Magazine to be original research as well? --SpinyNorman 17:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
All this said, I think Luke's suggestion to add a subsection in Controversies about the ghostwriting charges, is the best approach given the structure of the whole article. Wasted Time R 17:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, the edit you made seems fair enough for the time being, though I think the word "wrote" is clearer. I still believe that a mention of this should be made in the "Controversies" section with citations pointing to evidence that her column was ghostwritten. (I don't follow Clinton very much, so I don't know one way or the other if she's admitted this, or Rush Limbaugh claimed it, or what.) Also, what does citing someone on the cover of a book have to do with a newspaper column? —BorgHunter (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I've now written a Controversies subsection on the ghostwriting issue. I've restated the claims and I've added a lot of cites that weren't there before, best of all an article by Feinman in which she relates her side of the It Takes a Village experience. Wasted Time R 21:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this whole controversy deserves a RfC so we can see where others stand on this. Agree, disagree? —BorgHunter (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely there's more important brouhahas to RfC about. See my latest comments above: HRC clearly messed up with It Takes a Village, to the extent that it provoked Feinman to go public, but HRC did nothing out of the ordinary with Living History. Does anyone strongly object to this conclusion? Wasted Time R 04:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I certainly don't. I'd also like to append that she also does not seem to have done anything uncouth with her column, either. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Add Arafat embrace to Controversies? And more!

I think HRC's embrace of Mrs. Arafat after Mrs. Arafat made inflammatory remarks at a conference would qualify as a controversy. 13:50, 11 October 2005 155.212.56.5

Yes. Go add it. Wasted Time R 14:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Was this ever added? It's not there right now. Ken Arromdee 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I've now written a subsection on it. Wasted Time R 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
And, as an extra special bonus, no added cost to you the reader, I've also written a subsection on the amusing "seances with Eleanor Roosevelt" mini-flap! Wasted Time R 16:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
But wait, there's still more! Two of Hillary's most famous remarks, about Tammy Wynette and about baking cookies, strangely absent from this article after all this time. Not any longer! Wasted Time R 17:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of "Senator"

I see frequent references to "Senator Clinton" where I would expect to see "Clinton". I thought the Wikipedia style for biographical articles was not to repeat the subject's title or first name throughout the article.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)
After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only.

Is there a reason for this, or is this just the way the article has been edited thus far? patsw 03:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It was partly to avoid confusion with President Clinton, but mostly due to LukeTH (the main architect of this article) and his reverence for the article's subject. Wasted Time R 03:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is true. I DID change uses of "Hillary" to "Senator Clinton" but it would have been just as fine with "Clinton" instead. If I remember correctly, wasn't it you, Wasted, who didn't like "Clinton" because of potential confusion with President Clinton? I'm fine with "Clinton," "Senator Clinton," or "Mrs. Clinton," but "Hillary" isn't appropriate. luketh 02:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, many of the "Senator" references are from the Political Views section, which you wrote most of, but if you weren't the one, I apologise. I happen to like the use of "Senator" because it avoids some spots of confusion with Bill, and also because it differentiates statements she made as First Lady from statements she made as Senator. On the other hand I could see why some people might object to it as fawning in tone. So I'm neutral overall. Wasted Time R 02:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You're right, I did write the "Senator" references. Sorry that I misinterpreted your earlier comment. I'm also neutral on this. Patsw, please change the references to "Clinton" as you please. luketh 06:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"Her book" vs "The book"

The way I see it, calling it "her book" is complex and unncessarily contentious. I think the more neutral and accurate description is "the book". Discuss... --SpinyNorman 04:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Standard English dictates that "her book" means "the book that belongs to Clinton." It does belong to her, and I doubt anyone has any contention there: Her name is on the cover. It does not imply that she wrote it, especially considering that the ghostwriter thing is mentioned immediately following the mention of her book. It's no different than it would be for Rush Limbaugh's book The Way Things Ought To Be (also ghostwritten), or any other author (or "author", if you please): The person whose name is on the cover and on the royalty checks "owns" the book. "The book" is unnecessarily vague and confusing, and I don't think it really belongs. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what you mean about "vague and confusing". In the context, only one book and one person are being discussed. The phrase "the book" leave's no doubt as to which book we are referring. If the discussion was about several books, then I'd agree, but it isn't. And, I'm sorry but, in a section entitled "Clinton's Writings and Recording", it does imply that she wrote it. As far as the Limbaugh example does, I'd say the same thing about him. In fact, I may just visit his page (though I'll probably have to wash my hands when I'm finished) and see if there are any contributions along these lines that I can make as an offer to demonstrate some objectivity on my part. Though I am curious why you mention Rush to someone whom you clearly see as critical of Hillary Clinton. Do you assume that because I make what some would describe as "unflattering" modifications to a Hillary Clinton article, that I am a conservative? Would it put you at ease at all if I told you that I am a lifelong registered Democrat and proud, outspoken lefty? Just curious... --SpinyNorman 04:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Democrats tend to hate Hillary even more than Republicans, so it's no surprise. Most of the serious anti-Hillary editing on this article (as opposed to random vandalisms) have come from Democrats or "lefties". Wasted Time R 04:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record, I don't "hate" Hillary (not that I thought you were suggesting that I personally did, just some Democrats in general) but I notice that she seems to sort of a "cult" figure in the sense that her supporters tend to be a bit over-complimentary of her. I'd hate for this article to turn into a hagiography, that's why I'm playing "devil's advocate". I think this page could use some reasoned criticism from the left. --SpinyNorman 05:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Just tried to pick a random person opposite the spectrum to toss out. I could have picked pretty much any politician or political figure, really, but Limbaugh came to mind first. And, incidentally, not that it really matters, but I really despise Hillary as well. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
If it's published under her name, it's her book. Just like Pet Sounds is the Beach Boys' album, even though they didn't play on it. Just like George Bush's speech on topic X is his speech, even though he didn't write it. Just like the press release under company Y's CEO's name is his/her statement, even though some public relations flak in the home office wrote it. Wasted Time R 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Clinton's writings and recordings

I'd like to suggest that we change this title slightly as it is somewhat misleading and biased. How about "Clinton In Media"? --SpinyNorman 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You're really being tendentious (sp?) here. She did write some of the words in these books, even by Feinman's account. So these are her writings, even if they are also some other peoples' as well. There's a whole section detailing the ghostwriting business. Let it go. Wasted Time R 04:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I'm reading this wrong (and if I am, I apologize in advance), but it seems like you're accepting the legitimate discussion of criticism she has gotten as the result of her treatment of ghostwriters as some sort of compromise as though you're accepting it even though you don't agree with it but won't accept much more. My view is that wikipedia is about accuracy and objectivity wherever possible and that these elements are more important that political views. Yes, I agree that it is very likely that HRC wrote some of the words in the books published in her name. But to call the section "Clinton's writings" is to imply that she was the only one who wrote the words which is obviously not current. I'm simply looking for a more accurate alternative. Do you have any suggestions? --SpinyNorman 05:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Calling it "Clinton's writings" doesn't imply she's the only one; bibliographies and discographies often include the joint projects of writers and musical artists. In any case, people will read right through this and the "her book" or "the book" without realizing that there is some hidden meaning behind the choice of words, and the now extensive Ghostwriters section will leave no doubt in readers' minds that her authorship is in some doubt. Note also I added her acknowledgement text in Living History today, so that it's clear what she's crediting (or not) them for.
Anyway, I'm content with the current state of the article re ghostwriting (having swung around partially to your view, I should add), so if you are too, we're done :-) Wasted Time R 23:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hagiography?

> [From above] I'd hate for this article to turn into a hagiography, that's why I'm playing "devil's advocate". I think this page could use some reasoned criticism from the left. --SpinyNorman 05:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, a hagiography is what some editors might want, but I don't. Just in the last couple of weeks I've added Tammy Wynette, cookies and teas, Travelgate, Filegate, kissing Arafat's wife, seances with Eleanor Roosevelt ... a whole career's worth of public relations blunders and fiascos. Other than the vandals who claim she belongs to the Communist Party, I've done more than my share in this regard! Wasted Time R 23:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As another example, I just realized the phrase "Hillarycare" was never mentioned here. Since the term is still being actively used in political discourse, that's a pretty bad omission, which I've now remedied, with a couple of recent uses of it. Wasted Time R 18:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As for "reasoned criticism from the left", go for it ... but you missed the mark on two recent changes you did. Her low-profile, effective entrance into the Senate was well-reported at the time (and the material here now has four cites), and has influenced how two subsequent new Senators did the same. And comparisons of her 2000 winning margin was the subject of a lonnnnng, contentious debate here some time ago (check the archives); I'm content with either no comparisons of the margin, or all comparisons of the margin, but not cherry-picking only the comparisons that make her look good or bad. Wasted Time R 23:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Scandal-plagued"

It seems totally unnecessary to insert into our introduction of Hillary Clinton a description of her husband as "scandal-plagued". It is clearly a pejorative phrase, and there is no more reason for including it than there would be of calling him "peace-loving" or "popular". We don't need to summarize his presidency, and even if we did, we would need to do so in an NPOV manner. -Willmcw 01:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Anons try to put junk like that into the intro all the time. The intro to this article is very basic and ultra-factual and should stay like that. Wasted Time R 02:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The Vince Foster section

Here's what I think about this section. What is currently the second paragraph:

In 1996 Hillary Clinton was accused by the Senate Special Whitewater Committee of ordering the removal of potentially damaging files (related to Whitewater or other matters) from Foster's office on the night of his death. [2] Independent Counsel Starr investigated this, and by 1999 Starr was reported to still be holding the investigation open, despite his staff having told him there was no case. [3] When Starr's successor Robert Ray issued his final Whitewater reports in 2000, no claims were made against Hillary Clinton in this regard.

needs to be here. This discusses a "mainstream", non-lurid charge and investigation, made by official government bodies. It's in the same class as Whitewater, Travelgate, and Filegate, all of which are covered in the article.

Given that some mention of Vince Foster has to be made, what is currently the first paragraph:

On July 20, 1993, White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster committed suicide. The general Whitewater investigation included an examination of Foster's death and the circumstances around it. Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation, as well as investigations by the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the U.S. Park Police, all concluded that Foster's death was indeed a suicide.

needs to be here as well. Even though the official investigations of his death weren't HRC-related, including this here seems to be worthwhile in context and will set the record straight and help preempt conspiracy-minded editors.

That leaves us with what is currently the third paragraph:

Other critics of the Clintons have made more lurid allegations: that Foster's death was not a suicide, that it was connected to Whitewater, and that Hillary Clinton was somehow involved by covering up activities together with Foster before his death [4] or in that her relationship with Foster was an intimate one [5]. Some conspiracy theories even claimed that she had killed Foster herself [6] or had him killed [7]. No credible evidence or charges were ever brought forward in connection with any of these allegations.

This is much more problematic. In a better world, this material would not be in the article. But the Internet in general and Wikipedia in particular are not a better world; rumor and wild accusations and conspiracy theories are hard to keep under wraps. In a different case, I argued strongly against putting wild, lurid speculation into the article of a prominent Republican politician and commentator, but it's still in there. Ever since the Vince Foster section was taken out, editors have been putting this kind of material back in. Realistically, it's probably best at this point to include the material as stated above, which at least emphasizes the nonworthiness of the allegations. Gamaliel, what do you think about this? You are the one who has the sectNPOV tag in currently. Wasted Time R 17:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


I noticed this article was flagged for lack of neutrality. Let me offer my suggestions. The lack of neutrality begins with the first sentence. "On July 20, 1993, White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster committed suicide." This is like someone writing : "On June 12th, 1994 OJ Simpson was responsible for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman." Although both sentences are legally true, as determined in a court of law, in issues of murder and suicide it is better to phrase it as more of a decision of the court than an undisputed fact.

Perhaps it should be phrased in this way: Vince Walker Foster, Jr. was found dead on July 20, 1993 in Fort Marcy Park. Although examinations into Foster's death have concluded that the death was a suicide, there are still some who believe otherwise. Investigations into the death include Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the U.S. Park Police. Each has ruled that Foster's death was a suicide.

Despite these investigations, there continue to be allegations that Foster's death was not a suicide, that it was connected to Whitewater, and that Hillary Clinton was somehow involved by covering up activities together with Foster before his death [95] or that her relationship with Foster was an intimate one [96]. It is also claimed that she had killed Foster herself [97] or had him killed [98].Dradamh 22:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to revert your changes to this section. First, your analogy with the O.J. case is not pertinent. O.J. was found not guilty in one court, but responsible in another court, showing a difference in outcomes within the judicial system. With Foster, however, all four investigations in the judicial system or other official bodies have ruled the same way, that his death was a suicide. And one of these investigations, Starr's, was heavily anti-Clinton to begin with and thus its finding is especially significant. So while it is true that some people still don't believe in this finding, Wikipedia cannot give their views as much weight as your text does. Second, you eliminated entirely the paragraph about the Senate and Starr's investigation into whether HRC ordered the removal of papers after Foster's death. Why? An official investigation and outcome such as that deserves to be described. Wasted Time R 04:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


(→Vince Foster - there is no ongoing talk page dispute about this section - tag use here is bogus) [05:19, 5 January 2006 67.15.76.187 ]

Agreed, there hasn't been any further discussion, so removing the sectNPOV tag is appropriate. Wasted Time R 11:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Attendance at funerals after September 11

I think this section is fine as is. We have the primary accusation by Bill O'Reilly in his own words and a rebuttal by Hillary Clinton in her own words. Clinton was responding to a question direectly about O'Reilly, so I think he really is the main player in this controversy. Also, the link provided to Goldberg's site was not a news report, as it was represented originally, but an opinion piece. It's clear that she didn't actually interview firemen and police officers to find out the truth about this controversy. She's exploring possible reasons for Hillary being booed and this is one of the reasons she comes up with. I think it is highly misleading to present it as anything but speculation on her part. - Maximusveritas 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)