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.
Where is the information surrounding the recent MLK comments made by Clinton? It seems suspiciously absent from this article? DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Not only is it suspicious that the MLK comment appears to be missing, Hillary's political leanings are all over the place in her college years section. Within that period there should be a greater signifigance to her fondness of Barry Goldwater whom had been furious with Pres. LBJ and Rev. Martin Luther King, at the time of 1965. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.103 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I will be including something on the January 2008 racial dust-up, of which the MLK-LBJ remark is part, but I've got to straighten out the campaign article on it first and then boil it down to something brief here. This is a tricky and depressing matter to relate and I want to try to get it right. Ironically, her MLK-LBJ remark is almost exactly parallel to Obama's Reagan/Republican-ideas remark: something thoughtful and real each of them was trying to say, that then got blown up by the other side for not being dogmatically correct. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
As for her support for Goldwater, the article already makes clear that she was in cognitive dissonance from the early 1960s on; remember she had seen MLK speak in 1962, two years before she supported Goldwater's run. If you have some specific details that you want added in, please state them. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The following is highly misleading and inappropriate - However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she stepped down from that position;[16] she characterized her own nature as that of "a mind conservative and a heart liberal." - The placement of what Hillary thought of herself is strictly opinion which goes against the facts. Between 1965 - 1968 Hillary was a Young Republican Leader. There was nothing liberal about her beliefs at that time. This followed by joining up with Rockefeller. (conservative democrat)~ if anything this establishes Hillary's asperations to rub elbows with the Northeast elites.
Is this the direction of Wikipedia, propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.103 (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The date that she stepped down as president of Wellesley Young Republicans needs to be pinned down better. I believe it was during her sophomore year, 1966-1967; that's what Living History suggests but I'll double-check and see if there's any independent confirmation. Whenever it was, that ended her period as a "Young Republican Leader". Regarding her views during all of 1965-1968, I'd suggest you read this entire article, if you haven't already; it gives the best depiction I've seen of that period. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Gee you must have missed the article that details how a group of NY Times executives have funneled $31 million to Hillary's campaign over the past 3 years. (Both the Washington Post and ironically, the NY Times covered it.) This disquallifies the NY Times as an unbias source on the topic of Hillary Rodham-Clinton. If you wish, I will find a sufficient article and source! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.103 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do, better sources are always appreciated here. Please also give the cite on the NYT executives donations, I'll include it in the "Media coverage" section of the campaign article. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this appears to be an unbias account of Hillary's time at Wellesley College. The body of the college years are very near the beginning of this bio. At the moment, I don't have time to look deeper into the source, but the account seems simple and basic.
sorry - family stuff calls ~ but I'll be back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.103 (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the all the footnotes in that article are to Barbara Olson's Hell to Pay, published by Regnery Books. I've read large portions of that book, and it's referenced in three places in the current article, but it's not exactly an unbiased account. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If you look at page 35 of Hell to Pay, it has her writing a letter during her freshman year where she exults in the election of liberal Republican John Lindsay to NYC Mayor; she says she's still a Republican but she's "leaning left" and "look how liberal I've become!" This contradicts your statement above that "There was nothing liberal about her beliefs" before 1968. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, Living History doesn't give a date on when she stepped down as president of the Young Republicans. Right after describing her election to the post during her freshman year, she says, "Before long, I realized that my political beliefs were no longer in sync with the Republican Party. It was time to step down as president of the Young Republicans." (p. 31). This implies sooner rather than later, but is otherwise vague. I've now looked at almost a dozen books on Hillary, either in the library or on Google Books, and most don't say when it happened, a few say it happened during her first year, and one says it happened during 1968. All of these books are recycling some magazine or newspaper articles from 1992-93, I think, and I'm trying to find them as the original source, but they're sourcing isn't precise enough (unlike this WP article, huh!) to pin down where I should be looking. One other thing I've seen in a few books, however, is that the Wellesley Young Republicans were dominated by the Rockefeller wing of the party, not the Goldwater wing. So she had already shifted somewhat just by being their officer. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, back to the original subject of this section, I have now added her MLK-LBJ remarks as well as a description of the whole racial fracturing of the contest, to the campaign section. I've also included Bill's role in all this. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Presidential campaign of 2008
I must disagree with Wasted Time's undoing (12:01, 18 January 2008 Wasted Time) of my additions to this section; the reasons stated are not valid. The official Iowa Democratic Caucus results carry the percentages each candidate got out to two decimal points. This is factual information from the official source which additionally is particularly relevant when there is such a small difference between the results of two major candidates - there can be no justified reasons for hiding this. One would hope Wikipedia would attempt to provide information which is as accurate as possible. Additionally, Wikipedia is supposed to be a resource which provides current, up-to-date information for readers, thus the recount of New Hampshire results is relevant to this section ("Presidential campaign of 2008" at this point. We do not have to wait for the results of the recount before mentioning it as it is relevant currently. As time progresses, additional events may lead us to remove this note but at this time, the recount is highly relevant to reports of the NH primary! Zzalzzal (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a full description of the NH recount to Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008#New Hampshire; that is sufficient for now. This main article is horribly tight on space, and the presidential campaign section here has only the most important information, nothing else. If the NH recount results in any meaningful change to the results, we can include it here, but until then no. And contrary to what you say, Wikipedia is not "a resource which provides current, up-to-date information for readers"; that's called a newspaper, or Wikinews if you want. This is an encyclopedia article that is meant to be read five or ten or fifty years from now. "We'll put something in now and take it out later if it turns out to be meaningless" is virtually never a valid editing rationale. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)A recount in New Hampshire may be important to the New Hampshire primary and maybe Clinton's campaign article, but it is not important enough for the main article. All in all, not the right place for the content. --Bobblehead(rants) 02:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
From the "About Wikipedia" page: Wikipedia has advantages over traditional paper encyclopedias. ... Additionally, the editorial cycle is short. A paper encyclopedia stays the same until the next edition, whereas writers update Wikipedia at every instant, around the clock, ensuring that it stays abreast of the most recent events and scholarship." Wikipedia is intended to be as up-to-date as possible. The NH recount is relevant to Clinton's 2008 Presidential campaign at this moment (far more relevant than the sentence about her showing emotion). Since the description of the NH recount has been added to Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008#New Hampshire I won't argue the point further, but I do think people should be more careful about removing factual information others have contributed and documented, and use the discussion section before quickly undoing valid contributions. Zzalzzal (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Zzalzzal (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is far less relevant than the sentence about her showing emotion. Nobody has indicated that the recount could alter the outcome of the primary. However, many sources have asserted that her emotional moment influenced voters to support her. Paisan30 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Zz, you're completely wrong about the comparison you gave ... her emotion showing has received far more coverage, and had far more effect on the campaign afterwards, than an obscure conspiracy theory about how the vote was rigged. The whole race fallout between her and Obama will be the next thing added to the main article section, assuming it continues to have an effect on the upcoming caucuses/primaries. The recount won't go in until and unless it actually amounts to something, which in my view is highly unlikely. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(ecx2)The recount is not important to Hillary Clinton, but it is vaguely important to her presidential campaign, which is why it is included in that article and not this one. The presidential campaign is covered in depth in her campaign article. We aren't saying your content can not be included on Wikipedia, it is just included in a sub-article per WP:SS. Her showing emotion is important because it has been partially credited with her winning the New Hampshire primary (first win, etc, etc). I know you are new to Wikipedia, but please be aware that we have our own rules and regulations that we follow. --Bobblehead(rants) 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually not new to Wikipedia, merely newly registered; previously I simply edited without being registered. I'm well aware of the Rules and Regulations, which is why I was so surprised that people simply removed relevant factual information without having a discussion about it, and why I argued the point about whether Wikipedia is supposed to have up-to-date information (it is, as I showed). Zzalzzal (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The mere fact that the media speculated about the effects of her showing emotion does not make the media's speculations facts. We all know that repeating something 10 times does not make it true (although many Americans will believe something to be true after hearing it many times). All we have is anecdotal comments from a handful of voters to back up the media's speculation - and keep in mind, the media chooses who they show on TV and obviously, will be quick to show people who back up their beliefs. I'm not saying that it's not possible that the emotion had some effect on how people voted; I'm simply saying that there's no valid evidence of this. No well-designed, comprehensive survey of voters has been done to back up the pundits, and media speculation is not evidence. Zzalzzal (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, speaking of evidence, so far there's zero evidence that there was anything wrong with the NH vote, just paranoid notions by people who didn't like the outcome. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The NH recount is not about a conspiracy theory, but rather about the sad shape the security of our voting system is in, in this case, specifically that of NH. Already, the recount has shown serious problems with ballot security in NH. In my two sentences about the recount, I did not imply that election results would likely change, but obviously, if a recount is ongoing, the official total counts are in question (perhaps not the placing of the candidates, although this is a possibility). While the recount is ongoing, the fact that there IS a recount is relevant to the candidates' presidential campaigns and the NH primary results. Dennis Kucinich puts forth his reasons for calling for the recount on his campaign web page and you should read this if you feel you are the only one capable of deciding whether information about the recount is relevant to Wikipedia pages. He clearly states that his intent is to insure that every ballot cast is accurately counted and he called for the recall because of various pieces of evidence that this was not the case after the first count. Zzalzzal (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay.. Not the place for this discussion. Whether or not ballot security in NH is secure or not up for discussion on Wikipedia.--Bobblehead(rants) 03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It is mentioned on the campaign page. It is not important enough to include on Hillary Clinton's biography page. If she had requested the recount, or even commented on it, then maybe you'd have an argument. Paisan30 (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I conceded this point earlier (see this discussion) since it has now been added to her presidential campaign page (although I'm not in full agreement). After I made this concession, people made a few statements I disagreed with; as my response was relevant to their statements.
Since omitting discussion of the New Hampshire recount is the other issue that I'm aware User:Zzalzzal is feeling burned about, I have revisited it. This Salon article from January 25 seems to be the best recap of the recount I could find. Should material about this now be added to the presidential campaign section? Wasted Time R (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I conceded that point, and it was not at all an issue in my complaints about your rules and policies violations regarding the "decimal points" in the Iowa Caucus results (I never mentioned it in the documentation I provided). Nonetheless, I appreciate your gesture. I'll leave it up to the consensus expressed by others as to whether it belongs on the page. At the time, I specifically mentioned that I felt the fact that there was a recount ongoing in NH belonged because it was "timely" and would provide valuable information to people using Wikipedia as a source of information. Now, "time" has passed, and this information is less pressing than it was (specifically, I said "While the recount is ongoing, the fact that there IS a recount is relevant to the candidates' presidential campaigns and the NH primary results." - now, the recount is not ongoing (because Kucinich felt that the discrepancies which were uncovered in a number of precincts (some precinct counts had errors of more than a few percent, after counting about 1.5 counties) were such that the Secretary of State is obligated pay for the complete recount, rather than Kucinich; I don't know whether Kucinich is pursuing this in court or has dropped the issue, but the recount process has certainly shown some flagrant violations by the Secretary of State of laws and procedures.)) Zzalzzal (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that while this article is well-written and put together, it reads as if Hillary Clinton herself wrote it. There maybe should be additions/changes in the article that would include details or at least some mention of the various things people find negative about this woman. After all, she is such a polarizing figure in American society right now; it may be worth mentioning a few reasons why. Just a thought...
--141.153.50.31 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the Cultural and political image section, which is entirely a discussion of how polarizing she is? Are there some specific things you can suggest that we should mention, that aren't being mentioned now? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you asked the anon, hopefully I can bring back up this 1 specific. I understand where the anon gets his/her impression as I feel somewhat the same. Wasted and others have done a great job with the article and I absolutely do not think there is any intentional slanting going on, but I particularly think the improper campaign contributions matter is of major importance and should not have been excluded. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, clearly the "Possible Bias" problem has been "fixed" because now this article sounds like it was written by the Barack Obama opposition research team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocratNanny (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The article has barely changed since then and now, proving once again that claims of bias often tell you more about the claimant than the work being discussed. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understand you have this objection. By the way, since the time we last discussed this, Factcheck.org did an analysis of the claims in the video; see here. There are simply no reliable, mainstream sources per that give any credence to Paul's allegations, and his lawsuit has been so unsuccessful that it doesn't merit inclusion here, although it continues to be discussed in United States Senate election in New York, 2000#Hollywood fundraiser. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Judicial Watch is a mainstream source and it was actually them who filed the original complaint. The amount of money not reported was almost 3/4 of a million $ and the campaign director was indicted. It does merit inclusion: we can not make final judgments on ongoing court cases (which this is) and in order to dismiss these accusations as not credible that is exactly what we would be doing. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Judicial Watch is not a mainstream source, they're an advocacy group with a long history of near-fanatical hatred towards the Clintons. The campaign director was acquitted. We can make a final judgment on the civil court case with respect to this article because the part against Hillary was thrown out. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Judicial watch has brought up many points which exposed the Bush admin. to criticism as well and the fact that they brought a complaint in this case which resulted in an indictment and an admission of guilt is inconsistent with a categorization of them as being fanatics. Also, I think the court case is under appeal and Hillary could again be part of it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the initial comment on this post. While the article appears to be factually sound, the overall tone of the article is quite sympathetic to Hillary Clinton on all accounts, personal, political, and otherwise. I feel as though I am reading an autobiography and not a history book. I am not one to comment on wikipedia articles, indeed, this is my first comment ever, but I felt the need to express my opinion that this article crosses the line between upholding standards of unbiased reporting and a tone that portrays a person in a higher light, regardless of the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.215.234 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please give two or three some specific examples and cases where you feel the treatment is autobiographical not historical, and how the treatment should be different. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
1) "She was the First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992, was active in a number of organizations concerned with the welfare of children, and was on the board of Wal-Mart and several other corporate boards." The focus of this sentence would appear to emphasize her concern for the "welfare of children" and yet the fact that she served on the board of Wal-mart for six years is not followed by any reference to how Wal-mart is a company known for being anti-union, for exploiting sweatshop labor around the world and other practices that blatantly run counter her current alleged positions. This has even proven to be a controversial issue during her current campaign.
2) "Even then, she still harbored doubts about marriage, concerned that her separate identity would be lost and her accomplishments would be viewed in the light of someone else's accomplishments." While I do not object to this comment as it is a personal opinion expressed by Senator Clinton, there is currently much discussion about the role of former President Clinton in her campaign; in some instances even being viewed as campaigning in a different state than Senator Clinton. I believe the article makes an attempt to paint Senator Clinton as a proudly independent individual struggling with the confines of marriage, when it could be argued that she welcomed the marriage in that opened door's of opportunity for her that she may not have had otherwise.
As I said before, I do not question the factual accuracy of the statements made in the article, but I do believe that information left out of the article, as in the two cases presented above as examples, lead a reader to a tailored opinion of Senator Clinton given that more controversial counter-topics are not addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.215.234 (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
In the first case, you're only looking at the intro. When you read the section that deals with this period, you'll see: "Clinton was the first female member on Wal-Mart's board, added when chairman Sam Walton was pressured to name one;[96] once there, she pushed successfully for the chain to adopt more environmentally-friendly practices,[96] pushed largely unsuccessfully for more women to be added to the company's management,[96] and was silent about the company's famously anti-labor union practices.[96][94]" So yes, we do mention that Wal-Mart's practices ran against some of her beliefs, and we detail whether or not she spoke to those issues. We can't really dwell on the Wal-Mart question in the intro, because it would be a digression from laying out the basic bio elements of her life.
In the second case, we get into murky "what if" situation. The article tries to establish that she had much opportunity for a Washington career if she hadn't gotten married to Bill. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Now, would this career have led to the Senate? Possibly — several women of her age and background have become senators without being married to anyone famous or powerful — but who can tell. Would this career have led to a run for the presidency? Less likely, but again, who can tell. What this statement is really trying to establish is the reverse notion, which is a central theme of the Bernstein biography: That no matter how much she accomplishes, she'll never get full credit for it, as people will always say much of it came via marriage.
Anyway, these are good points to raise, please supply more! Wasted Time R (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your commentary and consideration. It's a pleasure talking to a rational individual who takes the time to weigh in considerations instead of simply dismissing them with blind preconceived notions and opinions. -- Steven Cytryn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.215.234 (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with the person that started this section. This article on Hillary cast a dark shadow upon Wikipedia. The bias is so stark Pro-Hillary that it quotes her making excuses for her conservative nature during her years as a Young Republican Leader, saying, she was a conservative mind, with a liberal heart. If that doesn't present the definition of complete NONSENSE!!! I don't know what does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.103 (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I've cast a dark shadow over a two-million-article enterprise, that sounds pretty powerful and cool! Maybe I'll change my username now that I've accomplished something here. The line you object to comes from her, not me. She was conflicted at the time; you know, it happens to people. I'm glad you're able to see things much more clearly. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
One last point - Berstein started writing the Hillary biography in 2000. The effort was more than likely an effort to cast Hillary in a positive light because they knew she'd be running for the Presidency. I personally, do not count him as a reliable source. He is likely bias, in favor of Hillary. Secondly, what citing do have for Hillary's positions whilst on the board of Wal-Mart? How do you know, did Berstein say so - did Hillary say so? - These sources are untrustworthy. This makes Wikipedia untrustworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.103 (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the Bernstein book? I did. I'd characterize it as a mixed portrayal, somewhat sympathetic to Hillary. Did you read the Gerth/Van Natta book, which also came out last year from writers who also knew she'd be running for president? I did. I'd characterize it as a mixed portrayal, somewhat unsympathetic to her. Did you actually look at the cites for the Wal-Mart positions? No, because if you had, you'd see one was the New York Times and one was the Village Voice (which hates Hillary). Did they take Hillary's word for it? No, she never talks about her time at Wal-Mart. They interviewed people on the board and in the company and in anti-Wal-Mart groups from that time. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I've read through some of Bernstein's book, I rate it as apologetic on Hillary's behalf for her ultra conservative past. Having agreed upon this, I'd say anything Berstein has written or says about the Clintons is highly suspect - therefore 'Not fact'. The interviews and pundit commentary of Bernstein has been nothing short of propaganda in an attempt to soften the image that has loomed over the Clintons. That image is a closed door ego-centric policy of politics. Do you recall the frustration of the Clinton staff throughout Bill's term as President? It is presumed to be the reason why George Stephanopoulos didn't finish out Clinton's stay in the White House. Here's another tid-bit I'd love to see you get into the Hillary Bio - Apparently, Hillary threw a half cup of coffee at a military guard because he refused to leave his post in the White House to fetch her a fresh cup of java. - Anyhow, Mr or Ms Wasted Time, you appear to be doing a fine job of crafting something that appears like Hillary isn't such a bad choice for the Democrats and the facts that prove otherwise are not going to stand in your way of displaying a mostly pretty picture. Truth be told - The Standard Oil family swept her off her feet and she's been a neo-con in Democrat clothing, since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.103 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The throwing coffee bit is one of those colorful but unsubstantiated Hillary stories that, alas, we can't use here. But I will try to add to the article that the Clintons practice "a closed door ego-centric policy of politics" when I get a chance, that really clears things up a lot. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The Bias is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Here on Hillary Clinton's page any disparaging reflections of her past of been candy-coated (Heavy on the Sugar), vanished completely, or needed to be debated endlessly before one of the moderators of her site gives in, but there is a refusal to remove any of the sugar coating.
The other candidates have been treated much differently. (Period!) It is sad that I need to read wikipedia as I do any daily newspaper, looking for the 'inbetween the nonsense'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.103 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Aren't these objections, coupled with the ones below, sufficient for a npov tag? I don't understand why the "regulars" here refuse to allow one to be placed on the article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Which "objections"? All I see is a few comments by very few editors who want to introduce unsourced anecdotes and personal interpretation into the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There are several vague comments from anon users that "the Bias is obvious to anyone with half a brain" but I haven't seen any real concrete examples or specific suggestions for improvement (other than demands that this or that attack/praise piece be added). --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You (Schultz and Looneymonkey) must have missed the 2 specific and non-anecdotal examples given by 65.160.215.234 above; identified by "1" and "2".
Here are 6 more specific and non-anecdotal pov objections from 6 different editors (from the pov tag topic below)-Looneymonkey should notice 4 are not anon- that you might have also overlooked.
4:Its very interesting that the leading Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani gets a long Controversies section, but the leading Democratic candidate is protected from controversies by Wikipedia . I see it as POV. TwakTwik 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)......I would like to add a POV tag to the entire article for now. TwakTwik 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC).....I will not add POV tag yet, but if any other editor also views this as a problem, we should apply POV tag.TwakTwik 00:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
5:Should there not be an entry about the controversial authorship of 'It Takes a Village' and other books - which were not written by Mr s. Clinton? ... Oxfordden 03:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
6:Yeah, and Hillary's negatives are all buried in the body of the article. Purposely made so you have to hunt for them. GWB has his put in a tidy little category with sub-categories AND poll graphics. Same goes for Huckabee and Tancredo and used to be the case for Giuliani, McCain, and most of the others. Could it be some of the Clinton sock puppet staffers are keeping busy over here too? --Mactographer (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
7:Where is the information surrounding the recent MLK comments made by Clinton? It seems suspiciously absent from this article? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
8:It should be noted that while this article is well-written and put together, it reads as if Hillary Clinton herself wrote it. There maybe should be additions/changes in the article that would include details or at least some mention of the various things people find negative about this woman. After all, she is such a polarizing figure in American society right now; it may be worth mentioning a few reasons why. Just a thought... --141.153.50.31 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you (Schultz and Looneymonkey) please explain why you think all 8 of these concerns are anecdotal and non-specific because my understanding of the definition of non-specific,anecdotal and personal interpretation tells me you must not have read these 8 pov concerns or else do not understand the dictionary meaning of the terms you are applying. Please allow others to comment before removing the npov tag which becomes more appropriate with each passing day because of the continuing stream of seemingly non-biased editors who express pov concerns. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've got more and better things to do than to go through a laundry list of trivialities. But I'll do some, to give you an idea of my understanding.
1) has been adequately addressed already. The lead is a brief summary.
2) is indeed unspecific. The writer does not object to the sentence in question, but "believes the article makes an attempt to paint Senator Clinton as a proudly independent individual" - how much less specific can you be?
3) I've never heard of Paul except on Wikipedia (Hint: I'm not a USian). The affair is covered in sordid detail in the sub-articles, where it belongs.
4) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. Specific controversy sections are discouraged. The aim of a Wikipedia article is to give a good overview of its subject, not to provide a convenient pick-up point for soundbites.
Oh, and my name is spelled "Schulz". Not t. I also find addressing people by their family name only somewhat annoying. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, Stephan Schulz, regarding use of your last name only. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr Grant Evans 2, I've tried to WP:AGF with you, but my patience has run out. You are a WP:SPA whose only goal is to get the npov tag stuck on this article. You do not have a good understanding of the subject matter of this article, as several other talk exchanges here have shown. You do not check your facts in regards to these Talk postings, either: your #4 in the list is out of date (the Giuliani controversies article went away over three months ago), your #6 is out of date (none of the 2008 presidential candidates' articles have controversies sections or articles, we got rid of all of them), your #7 is out of date (her MLK remark is in the article). Your other list items have all been responded to, several times in most cases. Your basic model of how an article's neutrality is to be judged is flawed. I've had enough. Have your npov flag, I would rather it stay on the article than to continue to expend effort dealing with you. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As long as I'm watchlisting this article, his weapon-tagging will be removed as soon as I notice it. He can't get his way just by wearing down the community. And if he's an SPA, only POV-pushing on this article, he needs to be blocked, topic-banned, or something. This has to stop. BellwetherBC 14:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please take at least 5 seconds to check my contributions going back 500 before making ridiculous accusations of WP:SPA. I'd like an apology from both of you for that completely and obviously false accusation/insinuation. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Now you're just wasting our time. The least you could have done was to research these claims before tossing tags around as weapons and breathlessly proclaiming that there are "Eight specific, separate, serious POV concerns expressed by 8 different editors..." Of those eight items you list, three are completely out of date and moot (#4, #6 and #7). Of the remaining five, three make no specific suggestions for how the article should be changed, but are simply vague exclamations of "I don't like it!" (#1, #2 and #8). That leaves only two items, Peter Paul and the fact that "It takes a Village" had a ghostwriter (#3 and #5.) Do you really feel these two items (whether you agree or not) warrant an NPOV tag? Really? As for #3, I've never heard of Peter Paul (and I'm an hours-a-day political junkie) but if you really feel that he rises to the level of notability, why aren't you making the case for it specifically? Why are you spending all your time on these vague assertions about the article in general? Ditto, #5 which has been discussed extensively.
Please read the third item in the FAQ above. I, for one, welcome any discussion about specific items you feel should be included or omitted from the article, but I have no patience for your recent antics. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've had enough too. MrGrantevans, you've said several times that you were going to back off of this article - I think you might consider following your own thought and do so. These points have been answered repeatedly, and you are now just being disruptive by posting them again. Consensus is clearly against you here, and unless new and convincing "evidence" is presented I intend to line up with Bellwether to remove unjustified POV tags that you place without further discussion. My edit summaries will say "see talk page". Tvoz|talk 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to try to be here sometimes to provide support for the constantly incoming expressions of NPOV concern voiced by non-regulars like 141.153.50.31 who started this topic and 69.243.88.103 who added similar concerns a few days ago. The regulars here can support each other and call that a consensus but when each contributor here who has addressed the issue of NPOV is given an equal value, including the ones some regulars like to identify as "anons", then basic arithmetic shows an overwhelming majority have expressed the view that this article does not cut the NPOV mustard! The 5 or 6 regulars, some of whom like to call editors names like "obtuse" (which tends to chase them away from the article), are the ones with the minority ( albeit active, vocal and controlling ) view. Also, I'm still waiting for the 2 apologies for the obviously false SPA accusations 5 comments above. Loonymonkey, here is my attempt to have the Paul issue addressed here. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, just stop. I referred to GoodDay perhaps being "willfully obtuse" in regards to his continually insisting on attempting to remove the "a leading" phrase from the article, even after it was pointed out time and time again that making it "a leading" removed all POV from the phrase, in lieu of "the leading." He had done it numerous time, against all attempts to explain the difference to him. That is the definition of "obtuse", and I see nothing wrong with using the term in that context. You're doing something of the same thing with your so-called "neutrality" issues. Where you see some kind of conspiracy to silence you, what actually exists is simply a consensus against your POV-pushing. BellwetherBC 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The histories show your habit of insistent name calling, even when the editor came to your talk page to discuss it. Even when proven wrong (as in your Spa insinuation above) you refuse to admit it. That's what I would say qualifies as obtuse; but even so, I don't see the need to ever call people names here. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This is in no way supported by the reference referenced:
"Bill Clinton's campaign promise of "two for the price of one" led opponents to refer derisively to the Clintons as "co-presidents",[120]" AThousandYoung (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually that reference is correct - if you read the source you'll see that it is a critic referring derisively to the Clintons as "co-Presidents". However, the first mention in our article of "two for the price of one" had a reference that as far as I could see was unrelated to the phrase - in fact I couldn't find actual contemporaneous reports from 1992 of BC using those exact words, but I did find him saying "Buy one get one free" in a Nightline transcript which I added and changed the reference to. So thanks for calling the section to our attention. Tvoz |talk 08:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
POV tag
Just going back a couple of months there have been a substantial number of editors in addition to myself who have expressed pov concerns such as:
Considering his ties with the clintons, including allegedly being defrauded by Hilary, don't you think this article shoudl mention Peter Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Paul) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.74.177 (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Its very interesting that the leading Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani gets a long Controversies section, but the leading Democratic candidate is protected from controversies by Wikipedia . I see it as POV. TwakTwik 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Huckabee gets a nice long controversy section too. "Funny" how Hillary gets her's whitewatered ... er ... whitewashed here. --24.6.29.122 08:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You are talking about changing majority of biographies, since Controversies seem to be the norm- for ex: check out George W. Bush's page. I think we just need to add a Controversies section to Hillary Clinton's page to make the article NPOV. I would like to add a POV tag to the entire article for now. TwakTwik 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I will not add POV tag yet, but if any other editor also views this as a problem, we should apply POV tag.TwakTwik 00:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? There is such an obvious bias and agenda schema between the numerous political entries. It is rather embarrassing to read. Please reconsider the standards policies....We need to stop placing politicians (all persuasions) on pedestals ... the OxfordDen ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxfordden (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Should there not be an entry about the controversial authorship of 'It Takes a Village' and other books - which were not written by Mr s. Clinton? ... Oxfordden 03:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The GWB article is nothing but a long list of negative unsourced BLP violations, why is it that this page paints hillary as a saint like figure like the kind propigated by the media?--—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 22:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and Hillary's negatives are all buried in the body of the article. Purposely made so you have to hunt for them. GWB has his put in a tidy little category with sub-categories AND poll graphics. Same goes for Huckabee and Tancredo and used to be the case for Giuliani, McCain, and most of the others. Could it be some of the Clinton sock puppet staffers are keeping busy over here too? --Mactographer (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm.. Are you that sure? Or are you just trying to avoid people from questioning her integrity? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw 151.68.11.126 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Where is the information surrounding the recent MLK comments made by Clinton? It seems suspiciously absent from this article? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that while this article is well-written and put together, it reads as if Hillary Clinton herself wrote it. There maybe should be additions/changes in the article that would include details or at least some mention of the various things people find negative about this woman. After all, she is such a polarizing figure in American society right now; it may be worth mentioning a few reasons why. Just a thought... --141.153.50.31 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I really think the tag should go up and should not be seen as adversarial nor as an indication of anything intentional nor anything lacking in the great work that has gone into the article thus far. Wikipedia tags are simply one of the many tools we have to use to improve articles and even this article might be improved by going through the POV tag discussion process. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
A lot of these entries related to the dissimilarity in treatment of "controversies" articles or sections across different political figures. All of the 2008 presidential candidates' articles have now been rid of separate "controversies" sections or articles, so this article is on the same footing with them. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Status of "controversies" pages. As for the GWB articles, I have nothing to do with them and am not about to start! That's beyond my control. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The ghostwriting of It Takes a Village is dealt with at great length in that article, and for Living History the same thing. You have to read more than just this one article! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The MLK/race fallout comments are dealt with in two full paragraphs in the campaign article. If it continues to have an effect on HRC's support among African Americans (we'll know after SC next week), I'll add it to the main article's campaign section too. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The Peter Paul stuff is crap. When he wins a court case against her, it'll be added here. Until then, it's just another testament to the excesses of trial lawyers in the U.S. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a whole section on how polarizing she is. It's mentioned in the lead (and restored by me several times after pro-HRCers tried to take it out). Whoever made that last comment above didn't read the full article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
→ There's one thing about I've love to have, which is a historical fave/unfave ratings poll chart for HRC 1992 to present, akin to Image:George W. Bush public opinion polling.png. That would be most excellent to include. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The chart does seem interesting but some of your comment seems to not have come through. Is there a mirror effect between Bush and HRC? Is that what it shows? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I am removing the POV tag - the editor who placed it has expressed such a strong bias that his statement that it should not be seen as "adversarial" is not believable. Wasted has again pointed out all of the places where these comments are incorrect and the POV tag is uncalled for, and, I believe, partisan. Tvoz|talk 07:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, wanting controversial (even if sexual in nature) history and reliably sourced accusations included in the main article is not the same as being partisan or biased. I actually admire the way HRC has been able to manage damage control/ retain support from feminists and I personally can't think of any better viable candidate to vote for. You (Tvoz) and Wasted are committed to spending a lot of time managing the content of this article and ignoring or impuning the motives of those who find it pro-HRC (as you did with all of the contributors shown above and more recently with the anon who initiated the "possible bias" topic above); and in the process the article is pretty good, but a review of the history shows that there have been many regular editors who are concerned about the article not being npov and I fail to see how the Tag would hurt the development of the article in any way. Why not wait for a consensus to remove the tag? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
For the hundredth time, you do not know who I am voting for and I don't care who you are voting for or what your opinion of Clinton's campaign is. That is not what this is about. I am also committed to keeping the content balanced on Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, John Edwards, Mitt Romney and Nelson Rockefeller, among others - look at the edit histories of the articles and my edit counter. We have a great deal of controversial material about Clinton - possibly more than any of the other political biographies - in this article and in the articles that needed to be forked off because of the extreme length, something we are constantly under scrutiny about - the length of the article, I mean. If you review the archives more carefully you'll discover that we have had many extended discussions about controversies and agreed that the best way to handle them is to integrate them where most appropriate. Many editors have been involved in those discussions - regular editors, contributing editors, editors who spend a lot of time on similar articles as well as this one. The same discussions have taken place on quite a few of the other political biographies, with the same conclusion that legitimate controversies should be integrated into the text and notes and sub-articles, where appropriate. On all sides of the political spectrum. However, including rumor and innuendo, as you have tried to do, is a clear violation of BLP policy, could be construed as partisan, and is not going to happen, even if droves of anti-Clinton people descend on here, as I have no doubt they will continue to do. Wasted replied above, again, to all of the points you listed, and in fact no regular editors have disagreed about this. You have failed to show that this article is not neutral - the controversies you've mentioned are includedor responded to, many times over, and that is why I removed the tag. Tags should not be used to make a point - and slapping one on the entire article, rather than a particular section one might find problematic, also suggests possible bias. Tvoz|talk 17:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Tvoz, I'll say no more about the POV aspect as I have stated my opinion and will wait to see whether a consensus forms 1 way or the other or not at all. As I said, I think it's a good article as is with an obvious amount of great work having been applied to it; I just thought/think the pov aspect should be examined by a broader # of Users to see if the article could be improved in that regard. If you or others do not want the tag to stay for more than an hour or so, then that's up to you, but I still fail to see what harm the tag did. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've decided I should back away from trying to edit this article but I wanted to thank Wasted and Tvoz for engaging in several content disagreements in a helpful and collaborative way. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Running for office
Hillary Clinton is running for office. She has previously been in the white house as the first lady(to her husband Bill Clinton.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.109.131 (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we know that. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
1996 subpoena outcome
The article on Hillary Rodham clinton states,"She became the only First Lady to be subpoenaed, testifying before a federal grand jury as a consequence of the Whitewater scandal in 1996."
The next sentence is misleading, since all it says is: "She was never charged with any wrongdoing in this or several other investigations during her husband's administration."
That's not quite correct. Her co-defendent, Bill Clinton, was disbarred in this case by the Arkansas Bar and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines. Part of the agreement was that the case would not go forward. The Supreme Court bar was also about to disbar him when he voluntarily "resigned" in 2001.
The Wikipedia article omission is highly misleading, to the point of dishonesty. If a couple are investigated, and one of the couple pleads out and is disbarred, isn't that worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepesklar (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Bill's disbarment was due to his actions in the Paula Jones case, which had nothing to do with Whitewater or Hillary or any investigations of Hillary. So no, this is not misleading or dishonest. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The 1996 Subpoena to Hillary Clinton was issued by the same Grand Jury investigating both Whitewater and Paula Jones. This same investigation led her co-defendent, Bill Clinton, to disbarment and a plea deal including a fine.
"In August 1994 Starr was appointed by a three-judge panel to continue the Whitewater investigation, replacing Robert B. Fiske, who had been appointed by the Attorney General prior to the reenactment of the Independent Counsel law. The law conferred broad investigative powers on Starr and the other independent counsels named to investigate the administration, including the right to subpoena nearly anyone who might have relevant information. Starr would later receive authority to conduct additional investigations, including the firing of White House Travel Office personnel, potential political abuse of confidential FBI files, Madison Guaranty, Rose Law Firm, Paula Jones law suit " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepesklar (talk • contribs) 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we're aware that many different cases, including Paula Jones, were investigated under the same umbrella. But the fact remains that the investigation of Bill in the Paula Jones case, for which he later was penalized by disbarment, had nothing to do with Hillary. If Bill had been disbarred for something they were both involved in, such as the Whitewater land deal, then you might have a point. But he wasn't and you don't. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Wasted, your point "had nothing to do with Hillary" is only valid if it assumes the pov that no codependency relationship exists because codependents are generally accepted as facilitators of the behavior of the sexual deviant if there is one. If you are stating that your position for non-inclusion is based upon your own pov that Hillary had nothing to do with her husband's quite public serial behavior, then that must be challenged because you have no knowledge of what conversations or activities occurred or not inside the privacy of the Clintons' bedroom. In addition, I think that technically Pepesklar is correct and also the sentence "She was never charged with any wrongdoing in this or several other investigations during her husband's administration." is quite pov since stating a complimentary negative is never necessary for a BLP. The solution is to either leave out the gratuitous sentence or else add the part about Bill's admission of guilt,disbarment and fine. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Your view on co-dependency has no place here. Wasted is not making a psychological argument, he is stating the facts - Bill's disbarment is not relevant as it was on an unrelated matter - from a legal point of view. As for the other statement, it is included as a summary of the outcome of the controversies discussed below and in sub articles. If we say that she was subpoenaed it easily could be misunderstood to mean that she was charged so we have an obligation to be clear on that in the lede as well as subsequently. It's not "complimentary", nor is it there to be so - it's a fact that answers a question that could be raised in the first statement. Tvoz|talk 07:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
We do mention the "codependency" angle in the Lewinsky section, where we say, "There was a mix of public reactions to Hillary Clinton after this: some women admired her strength and poise in private matters made public, some sympathized with her as a victim of her husband's insensitive behavior, others criticized her as being an enabler [wikilinked to codependence] to her husband's indiscretions by not obtaining a divorce, while still others accused her of cynically staying in a failed marriage as a way of keeping or even fostering her own political influence.[170]" But as Tvoz points out, whether there was a codependency or not has no legal bearing on the Paula Jones case, or Bill's punishment for that case, whatsoever. As for WP:BLP, you are wrong: if someone is formally investigated for wrong-doing, it is quite vital for us to say what the outcome was — never charged, charged but later dismissed, charged but acquitted, charged and plead to a lesser offense, charged and convicted, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
In reading the lead, the word "wrongdoing" stood out and may explain some of the comments. Changing to "never charged with any crime" removes any impression of POV and makes the sentence more focused on leaglities. CouldOughta (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
She wasn't charged with any ethics violations (misconduct short of a crime) in these investigations either. She wasn't charged with anything. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Charged is a pretty broad term and could mean a simple accusation; for example a member of parliament might stand up and say to another MP "I charge you with treason", and there have been many accusations leveled against HRC. It might be better to say "officially charged" or something like that. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In the context it's used — "She became the only First Lady to be subpoenaed, testifying before a federal grand jury as a consequence of the Whitewater scandal in 1996. She was never charged with any wrongdoing in this or several other investigations during her husband's administration." — it's clear that "charged" is in the context of official investigations, such as would involve a grand jury. The kind of "charge" you're talking about is almost trivially true of every politician — "Senator Jones today charged Senator Smith with undermining the best interests of America's auto industry", "Congresswoman Green charged President Brown today with war crimes after the accidental missile attack on a school", etc etc. "Officially charged" would add a scare word suggesting that she had been unofficially charged. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. The sentence seems a bit defensive on her behalf but I can't think of how to fix it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
"never charged with any crime or ethics violation" might do it, though it's minor either way.CouldOughta (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge proposal for awards and honors
Someone has proposed that the awards and honors sub-article be merged with this one. If you look in the archives you'll see that this material used to be a section of this article, but it was moved off into its own sub-article because of the length of this main article. Obviously the content fits here, but it was decided that we needed to fork stuff off to keep this article manageable. I don't see that anything's changed to make a merge back viable, so I have to oppose the merge on length grounds (only). Tvoz|talk 22:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as well. This article is very long already, and as reference material that is not vital to the biographical flow of the main article, Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors is just the thing to be split off in a subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on opposition. It's a pretty lengthy list and would make the article significantly longer. It may also lead to a bit of 'undue weight' given the length of the list. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the merge proposal tags, as there was no support for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel the Infobox for Hillary Clinton should show her profession as "Senator", rather than "Politician".[1] She is a politician, but her job is being a United States Senator. If you were an executive at a corporation, would you want to be described merely as an "employee" of that corporation? --SMP0328. (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If the infobox was asking for her current job, "Senator" would be correct. But it isn't; it's asking for her profession, which currently is "Politician". That term does not imply high rank or low; it applies to anyone whose main job is holding political office, whether it be a town mayor or president of the United States. She currently holds one office, and is trying to hold a different one; clearly "politician" is her profession. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point, but then I feel that it should say "Jobs." I imagine most people think "profession" and "job" are synonymous. Also, "Politician" is superfluous when used to describe a current office holder. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, your choice of "Senator" would be really superfluous, since it says "Senator" right at the top of the infobox. And "job" and "profession" are not synonymous; a job is specific instance within an overall professional career. Michael Douglas once had the job of a TV role on The Streets of San Francisco, then he had a film job of being Gordon Gecko in Wall Street, and now he has a job of doing something or other, but his profession has always been acting. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The profession field is used only if they have a profession outside of politics. For example, Larry Craig has a profession of "Rancher". Given that the vast number of senators do not have a profession outside of politics, nearly all senators do not have the profession field at all. Therefore, the answer is not "senator" or "politician", but rather neither. (NOTE: 'Attorney' alone is a valid profession for her.) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm cool with that. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Really, it should say "Attorney" or nothing at all. The politicians that do have "occupation" listed have their former occupation (for instance John McCain says "Naval Aviator" even though he's been in congress for 25 years).--Loonymonkey (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Popular vote vs. delegate count in Nevada subsect. of campaign section?
51-45 is what I believe is the correct popular vote proportion, but not the correct national delegate count. the article does not adequately explain this or its use of the term " state's ". That word implies nevada state delegates to the national convention (a vote currently 13-12 in favor of Obama), but uses the wrong numbers. Yes Clinton controls 51% of the precinct delegates to the STATE convention- but clearly to present that as national-level delegates is wrong. Other campaign WPs use a few extra phrases which put the nevada delegate counts in a more accurate context, and which I think are wholly appropriate for addition to the "hillary main page" even though "space is tight." if you are going to post caucus and primary results on her main page then those results cannot be misleading. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know all that, was hoping to finesse it for the main article. I've now changed this to "After an indecisive result in the 19 January Nevada caucuses that was portrayed as a Clinton win,[32][33] ..." The main point here is that regardless of what the national delegate count turns out to be when Nevada's state party convention happened, on January 19 all the networks showed Clinton as the winner with their checkmarks, discussed Clinton as the winner, as so forth. That gave her the momentum following the New Hampshire win, and it was important at the time because the racial dust-up had already occurred and the Clinton campaign knew they were likely to lose South Carolina. So the perception is that Clinton and Obama have two wins each, going into Duper. Also note that Obama got tons of press for wining the Iowa caucus, and Clinton tons of bad press for coming in third, even though the likely national delegate counts from there are Obama 16, Clinton 15, Edwards 14 [2] — hardly a big win. But that's the way the caucuses game is played. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I tried, but User:UberCryxic has undone it back to a pure Clinton victory. You can fight it out with him/her. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Him....umm, I did not characterize it as a "pure" victory for Hillary. I mentioned that she won the popular vote, or rather the county delegates, precisely because I did not want to get mired in the fight about Obama winning more projected national delegates...none of the other contests said anything about delegates, so I thought it appropriate that Nevada should not either. Speaking of New Hampshire: it was portrayed as a huge victory for Hillary, but both her and Obama got 9 national delegates. So if you're going to hold this standard for Nevada, you should also make an equivalent description for New Hampshire. I don't think that's necessary, however, because these early states are widely recognized for being valuable in terms of momentum, not delegates. The meaningful race for delegates begins on Super Tuesday. Everything related to delegates before that is largely irrelevant. For now, let's just worry about who won the popular votes.UberCryxic (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
or not (!)... all media outlets are already discussing the 2008 contest as a delegate fight... also look at the last major case where delegates and pop. vote did not match. if I remember correctly, delegates trump popular vote pretty much... always. SO lets have both because obviously its important if we sit around arguing about it. the theory that we should avoid talking about delegates until after feb 5 because it will confuse people or something, is a curious argument. its an encyclopedia so maybe it should have the accurate info and context. indicisive is best explanation for NV, wolf blitzer's opinion notwithstanding. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Your argument makes little sense. If we accept it, then New Hampshire was also indecisive (delegates were tied between Hillary and Obama). Iowa was also indecisive (Obama only won one more delegate than Hillary). Pretty much everything was indecisive except South Carolina. Media coverage about delegates serves mostly to remind people of their importance, but by and large the media has emphasized the popular vote in its reporting. By Super Tuesday, we're going to be inundated with talk about delegates....because that's when they matter. To eliminate any personal bias, however, I propose we just follow the narrative of the media (then it becomes media bias). The narrative of the media was the following: Iowa was a huge win for Obama, New Hampshire was a huge win for Hillary, Nevada was a huge win for Hillary, and South Carolina was a huge win for Obama. The content of the article should reflect that narrative.UberCryxic (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
you're still advocating ignoring the delegate counts?? (does it seem like i care if they were "indicisive"?) I say print the delegate counts and not the pop. vote, considering that is the way the US works, even if the media prefers a less accurate method. Seriously, keep it up so we can get the HRC page flagged for realsies and deal with this issue once and for all. Your idea that we should mimic the biased media "narrative" of the issue, when more accurate interpretations are readily available (as you admit yourself), is a laughable idea. Surely HRC herself would be proud of you, supporting the use of misleading statements (or the non-use of accurate statements) on her biographical page, right? I mean all HRC needs right now is another example of low-handed campaign tactics, huh buddy? so like I said, keep arguing from a pro-bias perspective and we will get this flagged and over with quickly. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
User:66.220.110.83, your statements here have been reasonable up to now, but here you're just exposing yourself as agenda-ridden. User:UberCryxic is basically correct that the early states in the primary scheme are not about delegate counts, they're about "winning" and the perception (among both the media and the general public) that goes along with that. Thus we don't explain that some much-ballyhooed wins by both sides have come with tiny or no delegate margins. Nevada presents a further and unusual problem, in that the delegate margin that came with winning was negative. Legitimate arguments can be made both ways as to how to present this briefly, and claiming that one of the arguments comes from bias or is deliberating misleading is not helpful and not in conformance with WP:AGF. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
To the user above: I'm just proposing that we adopt one standard universally, not one standard in this part of the article and another standard in that part. If you want to talk about delegates, then we talk about delegates throughout. Or...we could mention both delegates and votes - but again, we have to do it for every race. You can't pick and choose based on media narrative - let's face it, after all, you raise this issue for Nevada only because the media covered it - since that means you're willing to acknowledge that power and influence, which just now you scolded and berated.UberCryxic (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
like I said before I have no problem with using the delgate counts as the main yardstick. no problem at all with that. I agree that we need to use one and personally I am coming from a perspective where I hadn't even heard that there was a delegate "layer" between the vote and the convention. So I am very interested in this concept of delegates and super delegates that we have heard little about in the last few decades. And I am not joking when I say, remember 2000 and how the popular vote and the delegate count diverged. I think for popular understanding if nothing else a little more accuracy and explanation are in order. And yes I take your point that the main article needs to be streamlined and present a cohesive narrative- however that is why its doubly important to not simply regurgitate the mainstream accounts. Yes there is momentum involved in the early states independent of the actual results, but that needs to be identified as media influenced, as it is. I think two seperate results analysis styles could still be concisely conveyed in the limited space of the HRC main page (certainly willing to throw you guys some drafts), one an analysis of campaign perception, the other analysis of the actual numbers. Anyways as for bias, I am not the person who was advocating tacit accepatence of "media-bias"- I guess that is what bothers me about the whole thing, if I wanted to know what NBC was saying I would go to the NBC website and not wikipedia. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, all I can say is, this is going to get worse before it gets better, as a read of this article from today's NYT indicates. Especially among the Dems, the delegate allocation rules are a mess. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
reminds me a bit of the ole whig's versus federalists in the streets of jamestown colony66.220.110.83 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
To the anon: I essentially agree with you. Let's include all of the information. Before proceeding any further, however, can you provide a quick draft for the relevant part - that is, for the last paragraph in the Presidential Campaign section? Thank you.UberCryxic (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess its only esstentially missing two things, the estimated national delegate count from New Hampshire, and the estimated national delegate count from Nevada. I think it would be good in general to post the delegate NUMBERS, instead of (or in addition to) this language: "29 % of state delegates vs 15% of the states delegates..." etc which I just think is clanky and misleading (though admittedly the way many view the issue) 66.220.110.83 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
also SC and IA estimated national delegates. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Image
I know that this may not seem very important, but can there please be a different picture in the beginning of the article for everyone's sake? What I mean is that she has her entire face aligned squarely with the camera, and it looks like she is staring everyone down. There are hundreds of other suitable pictures that don't have this problem. I know it isn't that important, though it is annoying. Contralya (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There are not hundreds of other images of her available to Wikipedia. We have very, very restrictive rules on what images we can use. In this case, it's got to be either a photo taken and published by the federal government or a photo that you took. Have any for us? Wasted Time R (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. I took the portrait from her web page. Not covered by copyright since work of US govt.--Nowa (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
What if a non-government photographer took it, and gave HRC rights to use it on her website? That photographer would still own the copyright. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
...As you debate this, Mrs. Clinton goes on looking like Beverly from Serial Mom.[3]--64.201.212.148 (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Section Titles
A couple of the section titles, "A key decision" and "An uncharacteristic First Lady", seem more inappropriate for an encyclopedia aticle. Since both occur directly after major section titles, is there any need for these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.28.229 (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
They violate a dopey WP:MOS rule about not beginning section titles with an article, but other than that, they help establish the narrative flow of the biography. If you are saying that an encyclopedia article about a person shouldn't have any narrative flow, then I guess you wouldn't like them. As for necessity, I don't like the lack of parallelism you get if you don't have them there. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess they just seem more like teasers than informative section headers. Something like "Decision To Move To Arkansas" and "Role As First Lady" might be more useful to people scanning the article, but obviously no big deal. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.28.229 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I tend to agree with with 65.78.*. This is an encyclopedia entry, afterall. My first thought when reading 'Key Decision' and 'Uncharacteristic First Lady' is says who?. Ms. Clinton's role as first lady may or may not have been characteristic (characteristic of WHAT is not entirely clear), but that's a value statement and inherently POV. "Role as First Lady" is far more NPOV. The same thing with "Key Decision". Not only is that not very descriptive of the section, its also the opinion of the author that this decision was 'key'. We should avoid this kind of hyperbole in a bio of a living person and make it much more neutral, even if it is more dry. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding 'A Key Decision', sez who is not me, but rather Hillary and most every other biographer of hers. Have you read her autobiography Living History where she talks about how long it took her to come to this decision? Have you read the Bernstein biography A Woman in Charge which also places great weight on this? Regarding 'An Uncharacteristic First Lady', all this title phrase means is different from other First Ladies. That's not a value judgment, it doesn't mean she's better or worse, just different. And the section and article explains why she was different: used her original name as part of her name, post-graduate degree, professional career at time of becoming FL, office in West Wing, openly empowered role, two for the price of one, health care initiative, etc. This is not hyperbole; she was a markedly different FL than those before her or the one since. That's a neutral, factual assessment. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting. These titles give the article an extra bit of energy,life and flare. It brings the BLP a very little bit more closely to a "literature" feel. Question is, is that ok? I say "yes" because most encyclopedias are dull as hell. I side with Wasted on this. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Lewinski Scandal
The Lewinski Scandal did not, though it is quoted as affirmative in this article, result in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. A motion was made to impeach him, but it was voted down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.106.49 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? He was impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Throwing out sourced and verified information.
Support for Clinton also comes from from the Hamas; from hearing a declaration that she would make "drastic changes" to US Policy on Israeli-Palestinian relations. The Hamas have a strong national interest invested in any change in US Policy that diminishes US support to Israel.[1]
These contributions do not represent my person opinion on the matter, but rather represent the sources presented. Frankly, I'd vote for Hilary over anyone as long as she puts national healthcare on the agenda. Unsolicited support given to her, even if it's from an organization widely recognized as a terrorist organization, is appropriate for her article, and gives an international (world) view on the election rather than constraining the article to just the USA. Who becomes President of the USA is a major concern for many foreigners, even terrorist groups. If the information were different, then I would have made my contribution in another way. Simply because the information represents what appears to be a pro-right-wing view, I think readers are capable enough to distinguish unsolicited support against solicited support.
Look, I know that this page is supposed to be fully sourced as it is a biography about a real person. I am presenting information that is presented by Al-Jazeera, perhaps the most prominent news in the middle east. It's like asking people to ignore CNN, Headline News, Fox News, and every other nationally available news sources in the USA. If you want this issue to go away, help me fix the paragraph instead of simply reverting it. This is neither vandalism, nor POV. God, I really hate far right-wingers... But if they point me to factual information, then who cares what source it came from? It's true. --Puellanivis (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Point one: The Al-Jazeera cite you're giving is a reasonable article, but it doesn't say anything about anyone from Hamas supporting her. One quote has an imprecise "Palestinians are looking forward to seeing Hillary Clinton as a US president", one quote has support from a Fatah person (not exactly Hamas!), and the person listed as closest to Hamas doesn't support anyone. Point two: Who supports Hillary from foreign nations is beyond the scope of this section. I imagine lots of Europeans, Africans, Middle easterners, Asians, etc. support her and lots of others don't. We can't get into that here. If you want to start a section in the presidential campaign article about foreign endorsements (maybe there are some there already, I'd have to check), then you could add the support of this Fatah person there, if they're notable enough. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
As for your two previous cites for this, one was an attack op-ed piece from the legendary WSJ editorial page during her 2000 Senatorial race ... obviously very skewed and not WP:RS. The other is a 2007 WorldNetDaily article which you have mis-paraphrased above. It says this Hamas advisor "heard from 'many Americans' that if the Democrats take the White House next year they will implement 'drastic changes' to U.S. foreign policy and relations with the Palestinians." Well, yes, there are likely to be changes from a Bush to a Clinton administration regarding Israeli-Palestinian negotiations ... but what Hamas guys "hear" is irrelevant and they are delusional if they think Hillary's going to side with them; at most she'll try to prop up Fatah to use as a wedge against them. Nowhere does the article say what you imply, that Hillary has told them she's going to be easier on Hamas. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
So... fix it instead of reverting it. s/Hamas/Fatah/g And adding a section that you have granted would be appropriate. Just because something is controversial, or likely to be, doesn't mean it can be simply edited out. That only applies for unsourced material. Any sourced material should be integrated into the article, rather than simply being reverted. My second edit still contained the Al-Jazeera reference, yet was also reverted on a note that the information did not have valid sources.
In short, I know you know that you are able to revert unsourced controversial material. However, sourced material grants no such right to free reversion. Integrate rather than revert. --Puellanivis (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not how wikipedia works. You can't demand that something be included simply because it's sourced. Sourcing is only one piece of the process. It sounds here like the argument revolves around notability and weight more than whether Al Jazeera is a reliable source. This does not seem to rise to the threshold of notability as it is disconnected from the subject of the article and hasn't gotten anywhere near the level of attention it would need to become notable on its own. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with you. Others don't, and I'm attempting to stifle, and kill off any of their concerns, by addressing the situations as they are presented. Like I said, not my factoid, and I even disagree with what the intentions of including it as a factoid are. I'm attempting to neutrally place information that others claim are bogus. --Puellanivis (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Pfff... I'm walking away, I don't care about this issue (which I actually disagree with) to argue it to the point that it is acceptable to be placed in the article. --Puellanivis (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. As Loonymonkey points out, this article is not a catchbasin for every sourced fact in the world that has "Hillary" somewhere in it. Some Hamas guy's speculation about what some American might or might not do if they become president is not notable for anyone's article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The section needs to make that clear. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we know that. There's a full discussion of this in the It Takes a Village article, as you've seen, with much of it using cites I found, including the key Feinman Writer's Chronicle article. We don't get into this in the main article because of space reasons and because it's not that notable. Most politicians' books are ghostwritten to some extent, including ones more famous than this such as Profiles in Courage and The Conscience of a Conservative. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite shocked at this because I never realized these famous books were ghostwritten and it feels like misrepresentation to me. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the real world. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
What was your connection to Illinois?
What was your connection to Illinois Hillary? And what reason are you remembered in history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.71.71 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Barack, we know that's you, even with an IP address! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Naw, that's "Cigar Bill" pretending to be Obama to make him look bad.:) Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Leading candidate
Can we wait until after February 5th, before adding leading?? GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lead section already describes the status of her candidacy. There's no point in adding "leading" to the first paragraph. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This is silly, and I won't re-add it if you guys revert it again, but "leading" is both accurate, and non-redundant. "Tight race" describes the RACE, "a leading" describes the CANDIDATE. -- BellwetherBC 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bellwether. This is not a tight race at all and never has been. It's just presented as a tight race by people selling TV ads for the "debates". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Per RCP, the two most recent national polls are Clinton 44-41 and Clinton 43-37, with the trendlines both showing Obama gaining. That's pretty tight. Obama just raised a huge amount of money, as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't drag me in on your "side" in this, Evans. She has won two contested races (NH and NV) and Obama has won two (IA and SC). The only reason there's a difference in the delegate count is because of the undemocratic "superdelegates." Once 5 February hits, we may have a clear leading candidate. For now, there are two "leading candidates", and it is a "tight race." -- BellwetherBC 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Obama only got 25% of the white vote in Florida and 24% in South Carolina. It'll be the same on Feb. 5th. because for some odd reason which isn't talked about very much, white democrats prefer Hillary 3-1 when they actually vote. "Tight race" is too subjective,I think, and not needed. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, whites preferred Edwards or Clinton to Obama. Now that Edwards is out, his votes will split (including the white vote) between Clinton and Obama. And last I checked, every nationality gets to vote for president. Also last I checked, Obama won 55-27 (and pulled 1/4 of the white vote in doing so) in one of the most ... umm ... "racially challenged" states in the country. You may not want it to be a "tight race", but a "tight race" it is. -- BellwetherBC 20:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's talk about the article content. Do you no longer want "leading" in there? on Feb. 5th. you'll see a "surprise" blowout and Edwards vote will split 3-1 for Hillary.Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] As I said on Talk:Barack Obama, I would support having "a leading candidate" in the ledes of Obama, Clinton, McCain and Romney. I am less sure about Huckabee. This is not because I think the articles must be worded identically - I do not: each article's editors determine how to best word each article - but as an editor on all four of them I would support this wording on any of them. These are the leading candidates - as long as we say "a", not "the", and not "She/he is leading...", I think it is correct and appropriate. Please stop the political commentary about white voters, etc as it has nothing to do with the discussion here about whether this article should say this individual is "a leading candidate", which she clearly is. Tvoz|talk 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not think any of us should be inserting analysis such as "tight race" or "a leading candidate" but if there is a feeling analysis is helpful to the article then it should be factual and not ambiguous. "leading" can mean the 1 person in the lead. "a leading" gives the impression there are more than 1 in the lead so where is the boundary for the lead? As you say, should Huckabee be considered in the lead just because he's not last? Let's just leave all our personal analysis out; I certainly do not think it is or ever was a "tight race". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not analysis to say that Obama and Clinton are both leading candidates - it's absurd to suggest otherwise at this point and we can find hundreds of unneeded citations for it. Once again, I do not think we should indicate that either one is the leading candidate, but it is accurate and fine to say each one is a leading candidate. And this is not the place to consider how to write the Huckabee article - I was merely pointing out that I wasn't sure I'd support saying "a leading candidate" in Huckabee's article, whereas I would in both McCain and Romney. And you've made your POV perfectly clear so you need not re-state it here. Tvoz|talk 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that if I'm to edit political articles, there are a few editors whom I must simply ignore when they attempt to draw others into their POV arguments. Anyone who thinks Hillary isn't in a "tight race" is either being willfully obtuse, or hasn't been following the race at all. -- BellwetherBC 21:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to edit political articles, there's a lot you need to ignore, starting with your sanity ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
How is it anything but a "tight race?" For it to be otherwise, the situation would have to be that one candidate is virtually assured the nomination and there is little left to compete for. That is not where the primary is at the moment at all. If you need a cite for the fact that it is a "tight race" we could spend a few seconds and google hundreds of instances of reliable sources stating as much, but do we really need to prove that? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In a word: no. There's absolutely no POV in describing the race as "tight." -- BellwetherBC 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's quite pov when HRC has 232 committed delegates to Obama's 158. That translates into a 60% to 40 % split which is not tight. Tight in political terms is 50.1 to 49.9 like in the last couple of presidential elections. I'm not the only one who thinks the race is not close at all.The betting lines reflect a decidedly un-tight race with a $1 bet on Hillary delivering a profit of .50 if she wins the nom. while the same bet on Obama would produce 3 times that much profit if he gets the nomination. There may be tons of reliable sources claiming it's a tight race but the stats do not back up that claim which makes it obviously a pov claim in my view. Where is the empirical evidence that it is a tight race? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The delegate count is skewed by superdelegate estimation, which is a fixed number that is disproportionately high now due to few regular delegates having been selected so far. Take those away (and they can defect quite easily) and Obama's actually ahead in won delegates. Furthermore the Democratic delegate allocation rules in upcoming primaries are quite distributed (see this story), so we'll have to see how it plays out. The betting lines are meaningless; six weeks ago they had McCain dead and buried. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
ok, here is the RCP average of polls done over the past 2 weeks:
01/18 - 01/31 - 44.6 to 36.0 Clinton +8.6
and here is the most recent one:
FOX News 01/30 - 01/31 RV 47 37 Clinton +10.0
I do not think that an 8.6 point spread (in this case 18% more support) qualifies as a tight race. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop, Mr.Grantevans. This is all your own original research and synthesis and it is not allowed. We don't take "empirical evidence" and make our own interpretation of it and then add it to articles. If there are "tons of reliable sources" claiming something, it is completely valid for us to include it. If you find equally reliable sources that back up the argument you are making, produce them. It is possible then that those might be included too and we'd say there is a difference of opinion - among sources, not among editors about whether this is a tight race. Frankly, for the purposes of editing this article, I'm not interested in what you think is a tight race, I'd only be interested in what reliable sources have to say about it. How many times do you have to be reminded about this? Tvoz|talk 00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
ok, I'll drop it. I don't mean to be difficult but I truly do not see what the inclusion of the phrase adds to the article. At the very least its a subjective view. You might also want to notice that Wasted was the first to quote the polls which you now call original research. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The POLLS aren't original research, your ANALYSIS of them is. All you are accomplishing here is wasting the time of other editors who have to explain to you why what you are trying to do constitutes original research. -- BellwetherBC 00:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because polls are absolutely never wrong are they? (Uh, Iowa? New Hampshire?) Those two polls (and your own personal analysis) are irrelevant to the fact that this is a tight race and both candidates are fighting very hard to prevail. Google "Clinton Obama tight race" and you'll find hundreds of examples of the most reliable sources (NYT, AP, Reuters, etc.) referring to this as a tight race. You would be hard-pressed to find any reliable sources which says the contest is already decided. There's no point in going back and forth on this...there really doesn't seem to be much more to discuss on the issue. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
this is what the article should say: "She is currently a candidate for President of the United States; See 2008 Presidential Election Campaign." (or whatever the hell the linking article would be). this is the BLP article. nothing more needs be noted. there's a quality of 'newsitis' here - this article does not have to have up-to-the-second details. unless i'm mistaken. if i'm mistaken, then excuse me while i tear my eyeballs out for getting involved in this. thank you. Anastrophe (talk)
hahaha - I hear you. I agree that there's sometimes a tendency to jump in with the latest news, but specifically about "a leading candidate", this is not anything new at all - she's been a leading candidate since she entered the race. "Tight race" is a more recent phenomenon, but I myself don't think it's too newsy, and I really don't think it's POV given that it appears to be the prevailing opinion of Those Who Know About These Things. Now, don't tear your eyeballs out - a little flagellation will do. Tvoz|talk 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I would actually be okay with just saying "she's currently a candidate" and nothing else in the lead, but when you do that every passing editor starts adding stuff about the results and status so far, invariably in a way that goes into too much detail, breaks the article style, or is otherwise detrimental. So what's there is defensive pre-emptive editing as much as anything else. The good news is that this article as a whole is written to be read five, ten, or fifty years from now, and all of this temporary language will have gone away by then. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
not only is there newsitis in this BLP but there have been many pov concerns (brought up by many different editors) which were dismissed without consensus by the band of regulars here. NPOV tags are not allowed on this article either. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You are one of a few editors who drop by from time-to-time that try to add NPOV-tags as weapons to get their own POV added into the article. That's simply not acceptable, and the tags are removed by those editors who actually take the time to read through past discussions, and ascertain where consensus (and TRUE neutral POV) lies. -- BellwetherBC 01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I am only trying and failing at bringing to this BLP additional reliably sourced content (which has been thus far censored from the article). Content that might be uncomfortable to some yet informative to others. The article as currently fashioned contains nothing which can not be found on the most timid and conventional CNN type website bios and I do not think Wikipedia nor our readers benefit from just more of the same commercial media self-censorship. The secondary problem is the constant and presumptuous toning of the article content to fit with the assumptions of the 3 or 4 primary editors as to what motivations and underlying considerations are in play to cause events. These assumptions are referred to as fact throughout this talk page discourse. TV commentators get paid to do that but encyclopedic editors should not be doing it.There is also the well-intentioned and obvious use of the article by at least 1 editor to make their mark on Wikipedia by steering the article toward what they feel will qualify as a featured flagship type article suitable for awards. The problem with that is that it's an individual ego driven managerial process which conflicts with the collaborative benefits of including equal consideration of the energies and contributions from a wide variety of Users who are reduced by this article's managers to the status of input only. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Trying to get this article to "Featured" status isn't a bad thing. That you think it is--and that you hurl insults in stating as much--says more about you than it does about the editors attempting to get it to FA quality. -- BellwetherBC 14:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There are no insults being made except by you toward me and I re-emphasize that I believe only the best of intentions are at play by the editors here. An article which reflects the work of many,many editors and after review is determined to be FA is a naturally occurring collaborative work; an article that is managed by a few with the goal of FA is something entirely different conceptually much more along the line of a corporate mission strategy. That's not so bad either but I have the opinion that it does not result in a BLP with as much life and educational value as the former and is not at all what wikis are all about. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This is my last post to you, until which time you choose to collaborate and not agitate with regards to this article. Here is where you insulted those who are trying to get this article to featured status. All emphases in the following are mine, for purposes of illustrating the insult. (Note that adding "well-intentioned" to the description does not lessen the insult. There are plenty of "well-intentioned" fools on Wikipedia.)
There is also the well-intentioned and obvious use of the article by at least 1 editor to make their mark on Wikipedia by steering the article toward what they feel will qualify as a featured flagship type article suitable for awards. The problem with that is that it's an individual ego driven managerial process which conflicts with the collaborative benefits of including equal consideration of the energies and contributions from a wide variety of Users who are reduced by this article's managers to the status of input only.
If you can not (or refuse to) see the insult there, I can't help you. -- BellwetherBC 15:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I don't see an insult there. But if you do, then I should and do apologize to anyone who feels insulted by any of my comments. I am having trouble collaborating with the regulars here but it's important,I think, to realize I am not the only one having that same trouble. Ironically, I planned to only read this article but then got interested in the "tight race" designation. I'm going back to my plan to just read this article in the future. Best wishes, Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
United Methodist is not a religion
I changed it to "Christian (United Methodist)" so information is added and nothing taken away. Before you change it back please phone up your local United Methodist Church or Hillary's campaign office and ask their opinion. Thanks. (It also matches Obama's article.) Redddogg (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a Wikipedia biographical article convention that for Christians, the infobox religion field shows just the church/branch/group/denomination of Christianity, and doesn't say "Christian". This practice is followed in thousands of bio infoboxes; just look around. If you think this is wrong, then find the right editors within Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography to debate it with, and see if you can get it changed. I've never seen "Christian (church/branch/group/denomination)" used anywhere ... except on the Obama article, where they are going through some kind of insanity related to the Muslim rumor and have adopted the utterly redundant "Christian (United Church of Christ)". We in this article do not need to adopt their problems or their non-standard usages. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected about WP policy. However I still think that policy is wrong in this case. (BTW Methodists broke off from the Catholics after the Reformation and are one of the most inclusive of all Christian denominations. That is they like everybody. ) Redddogg (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Er -- didn't the Methodist Church split from the Church of England rather than from the Catholic Church? Majoreditor (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Polarizing?
Hillary R Clinton is not viewed by everyone as a polarizing figure.
This article is basically critical of Hillary. The article on McCain is favorable to McCain. I don't think that wikipedia should be promoting McCain and denigrating Hillary. 69.201.145.245 (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC) FW
That Hillary is a polarizing figure is an objective fact, supported in the article by many cites from political scientists and observers, as well as the Gallup poll charts with their high negatives and low "no opinions". [Yes I know I still haven't done the one for the Senate years yet.] If you have some objective evidence to the contrary, please bring it forward. Note that saying this does not mean she is a bad person or is a bad senator or would be a bad president; Lincoln and FDR could both be described as polarizing. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This is NOT true: "That Hillary is a polarizing figure is an objective fact." For one, what is a "polarizing figure"? It IS true that some view her as a "polarizing figure," it may even be true that many view her as a "polarizing figure," but whether she is a polarizing figure cannot be objectively assessed, because first we would need to agree on what the term means. Fact: the sky is blue, Fact: Hillary Clinton was the First Lady. Not fact: the sky is beautiful. Not fact: Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure. (Lulurascal (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
Read what I wrote below. This statement of fact is supported by her roughly equal favorable and unfavorable ratings in opinion polls, with very few unsure or undecided or lacking opinions in between. This is not a judgement value, like "sky is beautiful"; it's not a criticism; it's not saying Hillary is good or bad. It's just objectively describing the reaction of the general public as a whole to her. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The McCain article describes a different type of person. He's more hated within his own party than he is by the other party; he's an American archetype, full of American impulses from the heroic and independent to the ambitious and compromising to the foolish and ill-tempered. That article tries to convey all of that person within the context of political biography. Hillary's a real American story too, someone with immense promise during a turning point in American culture who made a fateful choice about marriage and has been reaping the rewards and paying the penalties for that choice ever since. This article tries to capture her story. They're both interesting to write about. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I can cite numerous examples of the mainstream media describing Hillary as polarizing. But where is the evidence that the general population, especially independents and democrats, consider her as polarizing? I think the burden of proof is not on me, but on those who allege that she is polarizing. Certainly Bill Clinton was a moderate president. Hillary has tried to come across from her senatorial campaign in 2000 to most of her actions in the Senate as accomodating. She is probably to the right of Obama who is more liberal than she is. I think as first lady she did a number of things that were polarizing. Also Bill has recently been somewhat polarizing I suppose but there are better adjectives that can describe his recent behavior. In any event polarizing usually has negative conatations and is highly subjective as a desription. 69.201.145.245 (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)FW
No one person within the general population thinks that someone is polarizing; the term describes the distribution of people across the general population. Take a look at these Gallup fave/unfave pages, for the 2001-2006 period when both Hillary and McCain were in the Senate and not yet running for president (Hillary's on the first page, McCain's on the third). Hillary's positives consistently range between the high 40s and mid-50s, negatives are between 40 to 50, with single-digit no-opinions. McCain's average during this time is around 56 - 21 - 23. That's a significant and objective difference. And it doesn't have much to do with left-center-right, but with personality and perception. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, the Gallup chart for 2001-2007 is now in place. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] Am I the only one who finds the irony of someone complaining that this article is overly critical of Hillary rather amusing? Tvoz|talk 09:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, you are not the only one: there are at least 2 of us. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
By your tone of derision I take it that you both are certainly not fans of Hillary and possibly are partisan Republicans. I actually have mixed feelings toward her although do not like those partisan Republicans who play "gotcha" games. I certainly want Wikipedia to remain neutral in the coming presidential election. 151.204.172.162 (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)FW
[outdent] No, IP 151.204.172.162, you missed my point completely. The usual criticism here over the last year or more has been that this article is too pro-Hillary, that we are POV in favor of her, that we don't allow any criticisms of her on the page, that we should be talking about the vital issues of her hairstyles and pantsuits, etc etc. So to me it is both ironic and amusing that now we're being attacked by an IP who says we are "denigrating" her and that this article is overly critical towards her. As I've said too many times, I've been accused of being on the staffs of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards and lately that I'm biased in favor of Nancy Reagan - but none of that is true, nor do I edit in a manner that reflects who I might be supporting in this election. As for Mr.grantevans, we're pretty far apart on almost every comment made here, so please don't lump us together. I can't speak to what his motivations are, but I doubt they are the same as mine. In any case - rest assured that I'm neither derisive toward Hillary nor a partisan Republican playing a gotcha or any other game. Tvoz|talk 00:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay sorry I misunderstood, Tvoz. I know now where you're coming from. I'm not attacking anyone. I was just distressed when I read(on the same day) the Hillary bio and then the Mccain bio and it seemed to me the Mccain bio was more positive but I will reread both of them. I didn't know most of the attacks came from those saying you were too easy on Hillary. I'm a registered Democrat, but I actually agree with Obama(and others) more than I do with Hillary and like his personality better, but I'm concerned that Obama might be less electable. To be honest I think if McCain was judged on policy(Iraq, the economy, etc) as opposed to his character he would be less popular. That's where I'm coming from.151.204.172.162 (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)FW
Tvoz, I don't mind being lumped together with you because I assume that your motivations are the same as mine. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. And you've changed your objections so many times that I can't even keep track. Let's just leave it, ok? Tvoz|talk 08:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think both of us have constructive motivations regardless of the consistency of our objections or justifications, so let's just leave it at that. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Name Change
I would just like to point out that someone has changed Hillary's name to something it most certainly should not be. So, can someone please fix that. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.171.162 (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Those kind of vandalisms are usually fixed very quickly, so no need to alert anyone here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Still hasn't been changed. Can someone do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.83.82 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What exactly are you talking about? Tvoz|talk 17:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The name "Hitler" appears over the photograph in parentheses after her actual name on the right hand column (Not as the title of the article, but over the photo). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.152.97.9 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
clear your browser cache. Anastrophe (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up, in the sidebar it says (Hitler) on the end of her name. I'd get rid of it but the page it locked. --86.160.59.6 (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That was vandalism which was removed literally one minute after it went in - you must have it in your browser cache. Thanks for the heads-up, though. Tvoz|talk 18:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Caption for the Graph
I have some concerns about the caption for the graph under the section about her time as First Lady. Firstly I don't like that the caption points out the "high negatives throughout". When I look at that graph I do indeed see large numbers of people with unfavourable opinions of her. However I also notice that it shows a large number of people people with positive opinions of her. In fact the negatives are only higher than the positives for a period of 9 months (and also at one point earlier on). It doesn't seem appropriate to point out high negatives when the graph also shows at least equally high positives. It might be better to point out the high negatives and positives, but perhaps it would be best if we didn't comment on that at all.
On a related note, this has to be one of the longest captions I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I suggest we simply explain what the graph depicts. (ie. a series of polls measuring public opinion of Hillary Clinton during her first term as First Lady)
In short I think people can read and interpret the graph for themselves.--69.157.180.44 (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, upon reexamining the article as a whole the same concerns apply for the other two graphs. Why are we pointing out only how high her negatives are when her positives are at least equally high, if not usually more so? Are we saying her negatives are high in relation to her positives? Are they high relative to levels of negative opinion towards other national figures?(that might actually be a valid thing to point out, if it is true).--69.157.180.44 (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree: these graphs don't need any captions at all. The captions are an example of editors (unintentionally) inserting their own analysis of information into the article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reduced the verbose captions to just the basics. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
sponsored legislation in the Senate
I noticed that although Senator Clinton sponsored legislation to make flag burning a crime and to impose penalties for selling sexual and violent video games to minors, all references have been eliminated from her site. Why is that? Certainly legislation that she sponsored as a Senator is as important as legislation that she voted for. I first learned about what she did in the Senate from the Wikipedia site, but now it's missing.
71.192.47.26 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
See Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton - this main article has become so long that it necessitated moving many of the details to sub-articles, including one about her Senate career. Both of the items you mentioned and more are covered in the sub-article Tvoz|talk 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a profound dilemma, I think. The relegation to sub-article status of this type of information means that someone like myself in 2008 could have spent so much time reading the primary article yet is/am not aware that HRC sponsored such contentious(flag burning) legislation whereas the anon learned about it when he visited this very same BLP. It reminds me of lengthy legal contracts where important aspects are buried in the footnotes not by design,perhaps, but simply as a result of the length. Is there a better solution than the sub-article relegation which I certainly think is severely flawed. I mean the fact is, that after spending so much time at this BLP, I only discover through the anon's post above information that has vote determining value to a free-speech nut like myself. I'm not sure what the solution is but I definitely think that if HRC sponsored legislation criminalizing the expression of flag burning, then that fact belongs in this BLP. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
User:71.192.47.26 didn't read the article well. The video games legislation is in the main article: "In 2005, Clinton called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate how hidden sex scenes showed up in the controversial video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.[220] Along with Senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, she introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act, intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games." The flag burning law isn't, because it's not as important. Flag burning is one of the great non-problems of the world (it almost never happens) and the votes on it are brought up once a year solely in an effort to force certain senators in awkward positions. Merits inclusion in the Senate career article, but not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As for subarticles in general, I don't like them because it's hard to establish consistent biographical themes across them, but they are a fact of life; read WP:SUMMARY. Indeed, I've had to fight to keep the main article as long as it is; see the FAC reviews. And the main article does have these obvious pointers — "Main article: United States Senate election in New York, 2000", "Main article: Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton#First term", etc. If someone has spent "spent so much time" reading the main article and never bothered to look at the subarticles, that's not our fault. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
When you say above that the video games legislation is more important than the flag burning legislation and thus belongs here whereas the flag burning does not, do you realize that is just your opinion or do you think it is a fact? If the video legislation belongs here, so does the flag burning legislation. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me just make sure you are clear on the background here ... you are aware that she has voted against the Flag Desecration Amendment? Do you realize the difference between that amendment and the legislation she introduced? Wasted Time R (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
oops? please explain the difference. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The Flag Desecration Amendment is a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that permits Congress to outlaw flag burning. It is in reaction to U.S. Supreme Court rulings that say flag burning is expressive political speech protected by the First Amendment. The votes on this amendment are the ones that get all the press attention. Hillary votes against it, most recently in June 2006, when it failed by one vote. Thus, if Hillary actually wanted to prohibit flag burning, she could have by switching her vote (assuming the amendment got past all the other steps to ratification). At the same time, Hillary and Republican Robert Bennett proposed a less drastic measure than modifying the Constitution. They proposed the Flag Protection Act of 2005 law in Congress, which would ban flag burning in a narrower set of circumstances, specifically when it has "the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace." This wording was intended to dodge the free speech issue and frame it instead as a matter of public safety (starting riots). Thus they hoped to avoid getting it overturned by the Supreme Court. In any case, we'll never know, because it was defeated. How many of the average seven (7) (that's right, 7 people out of 300 million actually do this, what a major problem!) flag burnings per year in the U.S. would this have outlawed? Who knows, but probably few, since most of the burnings that do happen seem to be little publicized and thus little attended. You really want to clutter the main article with this long-winded explanation of this non-solution to this non-problem? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Wasted; again you taught me something I didn't know. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Problem words
It looks like someone added some random joke at the start of the article. I couldn't do anything about it. Borock (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am guessing you are talking about this, as you can see it is reverted already. Thanks for notifying us! (If I missed an other "joke", please accept my apologies!) -- lucasbfrtalk 17:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Leading candidate (again)
Once more, can we have leading removed from this article (see Barack Obama)? There's isn't enough of a gap between Clinton & Obama to have either or both declared leading. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It said "a leading", not "the leading", and thus was correct (Obama being the other "leading"), but since it gives you heartburn, I've removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
My reasons for wishing 'leading' removed? Clinton and Obama are pratically tied & if any canadidate needed 'leading' in their article, it would be Republican frontrunner John McCain (but don't add leading there). GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't see the difference between "a leading candidate" and "the leading candidate"? I don't think you'll find much agreement among sources that she is not a leading candidate. And McCain is beside the point. I won't revert right this minute, but if my heartburn goes up I may, because I think the way it reads now ignores that the Democratic race has narrowed down from eight to two, each of which is a leading candidate. Last week you were asking to wait for Super Tuesday before saying this - well, it gave us a continuation of two leading candidates on this side. That they are practically tied doesn't speak to this at all. Tvoz|talk 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that didn't take long - GoodDay, you said "see Barack Obama" - I did, and it still says, correctly, "a leading candidate" in the lede. I'm reinstating it here too. I don't think the articles necessarily have to be parallel, but in this instance I think, as I have said above, that both of them should have this construction. Tvoz|talk 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think GoodDay is being willfully obtuse. There is such a huge difference between "a leading" and "the leading" that it's impossible that he just doesn't understand. BellwetherBC 23:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to fix the Obama article (but there's too many sources in the edit page). As they're the only Democratic candidates (sorry Gravel), how can they both be leading? PS- What does obtruse mean? GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked up the word 'Obtuse'. If you'll excuse me, I shall move on. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, alright then, a leading it is. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Super Tues
instead of saying "there was a close race in the popular vote and a close race in the delegate count" lets say what the facts are, which is that Hillary won the popular vote and Obama won the delegate count. It won't take up any more room and its more accurate. here is the NBC cite from the "Obama campaign" WP. <<<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#23033237>>>66.220.110.83 (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What we actually say is, "the two gained a nearly equal number of delegates and a nearly equal share of the total popular vote.". Indeed, it is far from clear who won the most delegates. This story from CNN says "The latest estimate gave Clinton 582 of the 1,681 delegates at stake Tuesday, compared with 562 for Obama. It will take time to determine the final distribution because of complicated formulas." This story from MSNBC says "Both camps claimed a small delegate lead, but an analysis by The Associated Press indicates there were still many to be counted." This story from the Boston Globe says "Obama's campaign yesterday projected he had won 847 delegates to Clinton's 834 on Super Tuesday alone, but Clinton aides were not conceding that victory." Given the complexities of the Dems' delegate proportional allocation process, which rely on congressional districts and other fine-grained calculations, and that some close votes are still being tabulated, "nearly equal" is all we can say for now. As for the overall popular vote, this Time blog has the latest results I've seen: Clinton 50.2%, Obama 49.8%. This is as close as can be, and since there is no meaning to "winning" this, "nearly equal" is truly the best way of phrasing this. Wasted Time R (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
well if you want to wait a few more days before you give the delegate count to Obama, thats fine. But why not speak in absolutes if absolutes are available, regarding Clinton and the pop. vote. If she won it, it only makes WP look ridiculous to not admit that or attempt to "gloss it over." 66.220.110.83 (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm having to wait to give even the states-won count, since New Mexico is still undecided. Very few media stories on Super Tuesday even report the total popular vote, because it's truly a meaningless metric other than to show how close the two are to each other. Even the Clinton campaign isn't touting it (see this Mark Penn spin-o-gram). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
has obama won the delegate count yet? it seems like he has considering the national reports have him up by 13 pledged delegates where it was only 5 a couple days ago. So is it official yet? this is the count from real clear politics I am talking about...66.220.110.83 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Proofread
You have misspellings in this article. Lock it if you like or must but correct these errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.45.239 (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Care to share some of them with us? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The IP address is in Bourgogne, France, so perhaps not familiar with American English spelling. Tvoz|talk 07:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
"Strong chance"
I changed this to "good chance". All that we're trying tos ay here is that she's a real contender. Before her, no woman had ever won a presidential primary, or been taking seriously as a someone who could actually win the presidency. She has, and that's quite notable and deserves to be in the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"Good chance" is fine with me. Tvoz|talk 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
not to be a non-regular pain in the ass, but it strikes me however that "strong chance", "good chance", and variants of same suffer one serious problem: they're colloquialisms, idiomatic speech. to a non-native speaker, it may sound like we're saying "if she's lucky she'll win". why not elaborate much the way Wasted has? "Clinton is the first woman to have ever won a presidential primary, and with her accumulated primary and delegate wins, to date she is the first woman to stage a campaign for president that may win the office". well, that sucked, but it was off the cuff. you get the idea though. Anastrophe (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Because this is the lead section, we're trying to say things as tersely and succinctly as possible without getting off onto longwinded explanations. I've changed this again, to "any realistic chance", which sounds a bit less idiomatic, and relies upon the consensus view that Margaret Chase Smith and Shirley Chisholm and Elizabeth Dole and Carol Moseley Braun never had a realistic chance. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
fair enough. i'm embarrassed to admit i didn't even realize this was in the lede, so terse is the sine qua non, for sure. Anastrophe (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The entire sentiment is pov. Batman2005 (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Since this keeps giving people heartburn, I've changed it to something purely factual: "Clinton is the first woman in U.S. history to win a presidential party primary ..." The cite for that is in the presidential campaign section where the same statement is made. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Works for me, good change. Batman2005 (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding her being a polarizing figure, please read the discussion above on this, and comment here before starting to rewrite everything. Also note that the style of the article is that there are no footnotes in the lead section; everything said there is repeated, with appropriate citing, in the body of the article.
Regarding the 2008 presidential campaign, please note that this is a WP:SUMMARY section and is trying to be as brief as possible.
Please be aware that this is a GA and FAC article that a lot of people have looked at and worked on; please discuss major concerns you have here before making significant changes.
Also note that your citing is not adequated. This is an FAC article that will be resubmitted at some point, and you have to show publisher, date, accessdate, etc. not just a link and a title. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've backed out most of the changes you made to the campaign section; they were too long and too detailed. The entire article is very long, as you've no doubt noticed already, and we have to describe the campaign in as tersest a manner as possible. Readers are supposed to read the campaign article itself for the full story, which you have already been doing a lot of work on. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Polarizing...
I removed the statement in the introduction that she is " a polarizing figure and the first woman with a realistic chance of winning the presidency." The first part of the statement is OR and certainly NPOV can be contested there, as for the second, it's redundant since it's already mentioned that she is a forrunner for the Presidency. My main objection, however was about the first part. If she is polarizing and to what extent can be elaborated in the body of the text. However to simply state that she is polarizing in the introduction is unnecessary, since such a statement would require sources for and against, and it makes much more sense to include this information in more detail below than clutter up the intro. Furthermore, looking at the articles of other current politicians, I think that the tone used in that part was much too negative. TSO1D (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That she is polarizing is discussed at length in the main body of the article, with ample citing. Did you read the full article? Please do before passing judgment on it. That she is polarizing is a fact, not a value judgment; please see discussion above on this. And how is being the first woman with a good chance of becoming president "redundant" of being a leading candidate? That makes no sense. I see that you are an admin, but with all due respect, I don't understand that leap of logic you make. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Also please be aware that the style of the article is that material isn't cited in the lead section, but instead is repeated and cited in the body of the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100% with TSO1D regarding his comment on this matter of "a polarizing figure". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This is discussed extensively above (and in the archives, as well). One would be hard-pressed to find a reliably-sourced profile of Clinton that does not refer to her as a polarizing figure. Like it or not, the Clintons are a political lightning rod. It is one of the essential details of her political persona. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
While the "polarizing" issue has been discussed above, it has not been resolved because there is not yet Wikipedia:Consensus on the topic - as indicated here. And in accordance with Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (or the fact that the article belongs to no one and is open to debate), I feel that we need to explore this issue further as a community, since it is up for GA and eventually FAC.
I do not feel that the article adheres to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view on the topic of "polarizing." It is fair to say that there is press coverage which argues that she is polarizing- and this is covered well.
At the same time, the article omits the fact that there are those who do not see Hillary as polarizing. This is also a fact which is backed up by sources as indicated below. To omit this fact violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Here are the links:
I feel that any or all of these articles should be added and the discussion expanded in order to improve the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The idea that she is polarizing cannot be a fact, by the very definition of that word. Also, yes, I have read the full article, but that does not change my stance because it is not the accuracy of the statement but its neutrality that I am disputing. As for the concept that she is the first woman with a good chance of becoming president, I am necessarily opposed to including this statement, however I believe that commentary should be kept to a minimum, especially in the introduction. Back to the polarizing issue, that statement is not NPOV, because there are multiple opinions on that issue and only one is mentioned. Furthermore, I do not believe that this issue can be addressed at length at the introduction and should be removed from it because it is not a key fact needed for a representative summary of the article. TSO1D (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I tried something else, how is that? (and sry for labelling that edit minor, I did it by accident). TSO1D (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I just read TSO1D's revision and it seems fine to me. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I respect the points of User:Classicfilms and User:TSO1D. I see that in order to totally establish my case, I need to find and cite a solid political science definition of "polarization", to show that it is a factual state that can be applied objectively to political figures. Then I need to demonstrate that it applies in this case. Then I need to clarify for people that this is not a value judgment or a statement that she is bad, so that people don't freak out when they see it in the article. Then I need to survey all the assessments of whether she has been a polarizing figure or not, and show the instances that Classicfilms dug up are a tiny minority of such assessments, and should be weighted as such. Pending all this, I've pulled the 'polarizing' material out of the article. I'll be back with it though, probably after her campaign is over and things are less sensitive. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This statement: "The idea that she is polarizing cannot be a fact, by the very definition of that word" by User:TSO1D is flat-out incorrect. Whether a figure is polarizing is an objective fact. The relevant questions are first, does the person evoke mixed responses as opposed to a unified one (neither Mother Teresa nor Hitler being polarizing), and does the person tend to evoke a response as opposed to indifference (as, for example, Hugo Chavez, an extremist who is not a polarizing figure in the U.S. because we don't really care much). There are people and politicians who might be borderline on this, but not HRC: she evokes strong positives and negatives, and polls (which are objective measures, fact not opinion) consistently show very few Americans are "don't care' about her-- they like her or they dislike her. Whether this is because of her, her husband, or the Clinton-haters is irrelevant. Deleting the "polarizing figure" language as POV is ridiculous-- it's an important fact of her political existence, and an important concern for a primary voter, who could use this information today because there are primaries going on today. The POV language was correct and should be restored immediately. CouldOughta (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that polls showing high negatives and positives and not much in between would represent objective facts, i.e. nobody can dispute that the xxx poll showed xx% for option a, xx% for option b, etc. However, the interpretation of these results and how they characterize a person are certainly a matter of dispute, and thus inherently an opinion. And as I've said before, this issue can be addressed at length in the body of the article. TSO1D (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.
In other words, the intro of this article should have at least a minimal number of citations for the most important and/or contentious elements. TSO1D (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I consider this artless, but whatever. To avoid duplicative work, I know where all the cites are; so if you tell me every element in the intro that needs one, I'll add the ref-forward tags to them. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It is "artless", and should be resisted, per WP:IAR. The citations rules were never intended to be a bludgeon that compromises the look and feel of the article. There's no need for the citations in the lede, when the information is cited in the body of the article. BellwetherBC 15:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no horse in this race, so permit me to make a comment without being accused of bias, POV, etc. Both sides are right, to a certain extent. Controversial, contentious and/or very specific facts/figures should be cited anywhere they appear, even in the lead, as noted by WP:LEAD. Also according to WP:BLP, this type of information should be summarily removed if it is not sourced. Bellwether, you are right also, it is "artless". However, this isn't art; it's not subjective. Choosing between words with various shades of meaning and various connotations is a science. We are here to present facts in an encyclopedic manner, aesthetics is a secondary issue and should never hinder our goal of maintaining encyclopedic value. Anybody who has ever written professionally knows that most readers will not read past the lead, especially in longer articles, making it even more imperrative that contentious/challengeable content be cited in the lead or not mentioned in the lead at all. We are writing for our readers, not for our own personal satisfaction in the "art" we produce. In summary it is my opinion that leads should be written so as not to require citations, but when including challengeable material in the lead is unavoidable it should be cited, especially in WP:BLP and WP:GA articles.--William ThweattTalk | Contribs 18:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It is my contention that it is both artless and unnecessary. Any "controversial" facts are already cited in the body of the text (as I pointed out in my previous note), and thus citing them again in the lede, is both artless and superfluous. BellwetherBC 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
We might take note that, with the "polarizing" bit removed, there is nothing contentious in the lead, unless we want to contend over whether she disagreed with 'most' actions of the Administration or the race is 'tight.' It is true that most readers will not read past the lead; these are the same readers who won't look at the citations, so citations are irrelevent to these readers. The primary need for 'lead only' readers is that the information be correct, not cited in-line. Remember, encyclopedias do not cite line-by-line (at least none of mine do), and encyclopedias do care whether the (always accurate) facts are presented in well-written prose. CouldOughta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.163.194 (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
there is nothing in that intro which needs a cite. artless is a mild term for it- is a total misread of the cite rules. 208.100.144.69 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Date of birth for Chelsea
In the biography section - it shows that Hillary gave birth to Chelsea in November of 1980; however, on Chelsea's wikipedia page - it shows her birthdate in February, not November. An inconsistency to be corrected. Thanks! 68.185.175.229 (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Sailor
No, it says she gave birth in February; the November reference is the next sentence, referring to Bill's election loss. Tvoz|talk 07:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Pres. campaign section
so, I don't think the last thing this section should have anymore is a reference to an "amazing tie" on super tues. I have been letting it slide but I think it might be time for an update. this is the hrc mainpage, it should be held to a high standard. 208.100.144.69 (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite right, I've now updated it to include Obama's 8 wins since Super Tuesday. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Two for one
This is in no way supported by the reference referenced:
"Bill Clinton's campaign promise of "two for the price of one" led opponents to refer derisively to the Clintons as "co-presidents",[120]" AThousandYoung (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually that reference is correct - if you read the source you'll see that it is a critic referring derisively to the Clintons as "co-Presidents". However, the first mention in our article of "two for the price of one" had a reference that as far as I could see was unrelated to the phrase - in fact I couldn't find actual contemporaneous reports from 1992 of BC using those exact words, but I did find him saying "Buy one get one free" in a Nightline transcript which I added and changed the reference to. So thanks for calling the section to our attention. Tvoz|talk 08:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I found semi-contemporaneous quotes for Bill saying "Two for one" and Hillary saying "It's a two-for-one, blue-plate special" in the 1996 Brock bio (of which this part was written off newspaper and magazine reports), so I've added that as a cite for the general notion. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
How tall is she? (Terribly Contorversial!)
The article doesn't state her height. If elected, she will be one of the shortest Presidents we've ever had (I think. Can't tell without the article info). And I do mean that to be significant. Most Presidents are taller than the average American at the time of their election. John Adams was the notable exception. Taft was by far the heaviest, but weight doesn't seem to be a fact people keep track of. --Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but Hillary is taller than the average white American (if you group males and females together). If you don't group the two sexes together, then she is taller than the average white American female, but shorter than the average white American male. But it is not notable, nor should it be in the article.. WTF cares? --Bobblehead(rants) 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What I think Bobblehead meant to say was that officially, Hillary is 5'8 1/2" tall. However, some sources claim that she's actually 5'6". Interestingly enough, no one claims she's 5'7" -- its always either 5'8" or 5'6". -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Lewinsky Scandal
This was a 2 person scandal and to omit the man's name is not-encyclopedic.BILL Clinton-Monica Lewinsky Scandal is also a common way of terming the event if not the most common. If the Iraq War was most commonly called the "Bush War" would this encyclopedia also use that term? Our NPOV policy and attempt for accurate terminology precludes "Bush War" and also "Lewinsky Scandal", I think. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Using the Google test, Lewinsky scandal wins by 40:1 or so. WP:NAME opts for the name that most readers easily recognize and that makes linking to the article easy and convenient. Sorry, we are descriptive, not prescriptive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but Stephan Schulz, I thought you would certainly agree with me because of your quite correct appraisal above: "I also find addressing people by their family name only somewhat annoying. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)".. Should we not extend the same courtesies to Ms. Lewinsky if possible? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It depends. Addressing someone by given name only certainly is impolite, and may be insulting ("Bush, get your act together!"). Talking about well-known public figures that way in the third person is more or less common-place ("I think Bush should get his act together"). Anyways, we are not talking about the person, but about the event that inherited the name from the person. See Monica Lewinsky for the person. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, but I thought we should not be held to the results of the Talk:Lewinsky scandal because since this is about HRC that the terminology here should be more arms length from that event, perhaps. I suppose the main thing in my mind is that the Lewinsky Scandal term is just too abrupt and tabloidy for a serious encyclopedia. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"First Lady" vs. "first lady"
During his WP:GAR edits, User:Geometry guy changed a bunch of "first lady" usages to "First Lady", with the edit comment "Remove unneeded repetition of first lady: please decide whether you want capitals or not, and be consistent." But he left two "first lady"s as they were, whether by intent or oversight I'm not sure. I suspect the latter, so for now, I've changed both of those to the capitalized form, just to be consistent.
Before the Geometry changes, the article had tried to follow the MOS:CAPS#Titles guideline. In some cases it's clear how to apply that guideline, but in others I had been left in doubt (I was tempted to use the Prime Minister rules in the second paragraph of that section, even though the implication is they don't apply here). If anyone feels they have a clear and correct understanding of how to apply MOS:CAPS#Titles to all the "first lady"/"First Lady" decisions in this article, go for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt Geometry put as much thought (or research) into this ingredient as you have, Wasted, so I'd say just use your own judgment with this. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, speaking from an English standpoint, the common belief would be that it is "First Lady" in pretty much every instance. First Lady is considered a title, therefore capitalization is needed. However, the more correct way would be to capitalize when it refers to ONE person, as opposed to multiple people. In plural form, or non-descriptive form, the phrase is always written as "first lady" or "first ladies". When referring to a particular individual, however, the phrase is correctly written as "First Lady". When describing the job itself, it would be written "first lady". - Jason
I believe I changed two occurences and removed one; I was not attempting to be systematic in my edits.
Without reference to the ever-changing MoS, it seems to me that "first lady", without capitals, is a potential garden path for the reader, and makes matters difficult for the writer. One of the examples I changed was "second first lady", and the usage I removed was "initial first lady". Now, given this point, lets look at MOS:CAPS#Titles and see if it is any help to us. The example there which strikes me the most is "King of France" (in capitals). In this article, the phrase "First Lady" is always (I believe) being used to refer to the First Lady of the United States of America, never to the generic notion of a first lady as the wife of a political leader. I think this provides ample MoS justification to do what we surely want to do, and capitalize it as much as possible. The other usage I changed was in the plural. I've now changed it to the singular to make it clearer that it is a title, not a generic description. Does that work for other editors? Geometry guy 11:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
"Featured Article" mission
It has been acknowledged by some editors here that they are putting forth an effort to design and manage this article in such a way as to present it for the FA award. Is it just me or does the deliberate manipulation (sorry, that's the best word I could think of) of the article's content to reap the FA award somehow conflict with the basic natural evolutionary concept of a wiki platform? Shouldn't FA be something that comes (or not) after the fact, as opposed to being assertively sought in the development stage? Isn't personal(or team) ego misplaced within a volunteer wiki? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If you really want to discover the dastardly ideological manipulations that editor cabals go through to prepare an article for FAC, take a gander at User:BQZip01/FA Tips. Especially fun are adding non-breaking spaces, word vs. numeral usage, and endless struggles with WP:FOOTNOTE format requirements (e.g. inside or outside a closing parenthesis?). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Second that. Mr Grantevans, if you have a problem with the Featured Article program on Wikipedia, take it up there. I'm getting pretty tired of your accusations and innuendo on this talk page. It seems that when you fail on content you move to process, and it's getting to be pretty old. FA is not an award, by the way, and as Wasted suggests, its granting tends to be more focused on minutiae of form than anything else. Tvoz|talk 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz, I'm getting tired of being on the receiving end of your very personally directed criticisms (about 10 thus far from you towards me) which I have ignored up until now. I'm tired of your misrepresentations (there is nothing even close to accusation nor innuendo in my presentation of this topic ) and your constant Ad hominem deflections of talk page topics and your refusal to acknowledge the constructive edits I've made to this article: e.g. [4][5]. If you don't accept our Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy, our Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy and our collaborative process, then I suggest you find your way to the many individualistic and ad hominem oriented blogs. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
From a factual perspective, FA awards are not focused on minutiae of form. Please read the description and ,again,Tvoz, please do not misrepresent my words. What I address in this topic is not a problem with the program but a concern about limiting the potential of THIS article by employing Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and by breaking other Wikipedia policies in the persuit of the FA award. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That's just a very strange question; all articles should strive to attain the standard of featured articles. Aiming to produce an article of that caliber is how all editing should be geared; I guess I really don't understand the question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
ok, Let me try to explain with 2 points:
1:Compare it with a movie. I have never seen where producers and directors announced during the making of a movie that they were trying to make a movie that would gather the most votes and win the Best Picture Academy Award.
Why not ??
Maybe because simply the overt preoccupation with that type of micro-managing control can (and I suggest will) castrate the unique excellence and benefits that can be derived from "in the moment" collaborative, brainstorming type development.
2:Consciously pursuing an award for voluntary work is like giving someone a gift because you want something in return. The something in this case is recognition. Such a preconceived objective (recognition) is contrary to the whole mentality and atmosphere of selfless contribution which I think is the foundation of Wikipedia. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Decimal points on Iowa caucus results
Wasted Time R and I have been reverting the addition of two decimal points to the Iowa caucus by another user since Jan 19 because they are completely unnecessary. Today the user has re-added them four times. Aside from being a candidate for WP:LAME what is everyone's opinion on including the two decimal points or having the percentage point rounded to the nearest whole number. --Bobblehead(rants) 19:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There's only a 0.30% difference between Edwards' poll in the 2008 Iowa Caucus (29.75%) and Clinton's (29.45%), so I think the percentage points are appropriate here. They're official polls, not estimates based on samples of a smaller population, so in my opinion the precision is merited. --TS 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My strongly held opinion, after careful consideration, is that I don't give a rat's ass (In case this is not obvious: Count this as a vote for WP:LAME). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If the official results are given to two decimal places, there's nothing wrong with giving that detail here. It's certainly not something to keep reverting. Especially in such a close race as this, it is absolutely appropriate to give the full level of detail. Incidentally, is it reasonable for two people to gang up on one person and then, when they have done less than 3 reversions each but more in total, to claim the other person needs to be banned for breaking the rule?217.43.168.194 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe this discussion is serious. One candidate got 29.45%, another got 29.75% and not only are you saying we shouldn't have the decimal places, but you've spent nearly a month warring about it? Of course the decimal places are appropriate!Quelcrime (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The decimal places should stay.JaneGrey (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a style issue, not a content issue. Everywhere else in the main text of this article — the 2000 Senate race, the 2006 Senate race, the other primaries and caucuses in 2008 — the results are given to the nearest percent, with no decimal places. This Iowa result should be consistent with that. The idea that, as Zzal claims in an edit summary, "the desire to want to NOT list official results suggests a political bias on your part" is absurd. One, nobody cares about the Iowa caucus percentage result any more. Two, the difference between a 1% margin in the Iowa caucus and a .3% margin in the Iowa caucus is negligible — given the small numbers of people who participated in this event, this is a very narrow margin either way. To think otherwise is being innumerate. I'm sorry that Hillary ended up in third place due to such a tight result, but that's life. Deal with it. I have changed the Iowa section of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article to include the two decimal places; that's an article that goes into tons of detail about each caucus primary, and showing decimal places — as well as the more important discussion of who got how many delegates out of it — is appropriate there. Indeed, the full discussion of the results isn't even there, but in the Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2008 article; there are still country, district, and state conventions that have to meet to determine for sure how many delegates will attend the national convention. As with all caucuses, the quick election-night view on the returns is usually not the full story at all. Thus to give two decimal places on the first round of returns is especially misleading; these aren't significant digits, if you're familiar with that term from science. The bottom line is, this is a summary section here in this article that is giving a general overview of the campaign, and suddenly dropping into two decimal places here is editorially inappropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
New approach: To try to duck this dispute altogether, I've reworded the text to say, "... she placed third with 29 percent of the state delegate selections in the 3 January 2008 Iowa Democratic caucus, a fraction of a percent behind Edwards; Obama won with 38 percent." How's that? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Bobblehead tried changing this to "she placed third in the state delegate selections in the 3 January 2008 Iowa Democratic caucus, a fraction of a percent behind Edwards and eight points behind Obama,[267] but received the second most of the state's national delegates by receiving 15 compared to Obama's 16 and Edwards's 14.[268]", with the edit comment "Actual percentage isn't that important. It's all about the delegates, really." There are two problems with this: we still don't know, and won't know for a while, who got what national delegates from Iowa; and in the early primaries, it isn't all about the delegates, it's all about the perception of who's winning. If it was about the delegates, we would describe New Hampshire as a tie instead of a Clinton win, Nevada as an Obama win instead of a Clinton win, Missouri as a tie on Super Tuesday instead of one of the states Obama won, etc. So if we want, we can recast every result in this section in terms of delegates, not vote, but we can't do it just for Iowa. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a request for opinions. By my count it's four to two for retention of the decimal places so far. Since you've obviously decided to ignore that, I shan't bother giving my opinion. However, the current wording ('a fraction of a percent') is illiterate nonsense. I'll correct it.JulieRudiani (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction; I knew what I had written wasn't quite right, but for some reason couldn't find the correct formulation. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Another point. If all percentage figures in the article must be given to the same number of decimal places for reasons of stylistic consistency, does this argument not also apply to amounts of money? Some of the figures in the article are rounded to the nearest million dollars; others are not. Some are reounded to two significant figures; others are not. I look forward to seeing this corrected.JulieRudiani (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
A good point. I just looked, and I only found one case where more than two significant figures were used — a "$21.4 billion" for post-9/11 funds. I've changed this to "$21 billion". If there's a place I missed, let me know. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice, rereading above, that there seems to be an assumption that anyone with a point of view must have partisan political reasons for it. Not so. Some of just care that Wikipedia makes sense.JulieRudiani (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
style guides are guides, not mandates. In this particular case, the additional digits are significant, and should be included, regardless of whether other figures in the article include more or less significant digits. Calling 'a fraction of a percent' illiterate nonsense may not be the most polite way to point out the issue but 'a fraction of a percent' certainly does not convey nearly the same meaning as the numbers do. This election was close, very close. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The text was subsequently changed to "fraction of a percentage point". This election was not that close; Obama won by eight percentage points. Clinton rebounded with a win in New Hampshire five days later. Edwards would never again get second place during the whole campaign and would drop out before even getting to Super Tuesday. The lasting impact of whether Edwards or Clinton finished second in Iowa was close to zero. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no substantive difference between 'fraction of a percent' and 'fraction of a percentage point'. The rest of your comment presents original research (or at least uncited information) on the significance of the results, while I am just pointing out that the election results were indeed mathematically close since there was a .30% difference between second and third. I fail to see why you're so adamantly against being accurate. I've read over this thread and I find it an instance of (if you will forgive me) wasted time to revert this over and over, against apparent consensus. Why hide information in pursuit of style? I suggest you change your approach. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, back to two decimal places we go. Sorry to have annoyed everyone. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, WastedTime’s and Bobblehead’s actions and responses in regard to the reporting of the Iowa Democratic Caucus Results have gone beyond ridiculous. In case it’s not clear, I also voted (with my attempts to discuss the issue and edits back on Jan 6, 18, 19, Feb 1, 7, and 18) for keeping the decimal points in the Iowa Caucus Results, which is the way the official results are expressed. WastedTime’s multiple obtuse responses are ridiculous, especially the response at 16:37, 19 February 2008 – WastedTime is well aware that the relevant issue is the very close second and third place finishes. It’s frankly very hard to believe WastedTime and Bobblehead have acted in good faith, and their violations of multiple wikipedia rules and policies further support this assertion (documentation below).
Given that the consensus expressed in this Discussion has finally been respected by WastedTime, the following may seem less relevant. However, I feel it is important to provide full documentation of the history of this event, which goes back to Jan. 6 – to prevent similar behavior in the future on the part of WastedTime and Bobblehead. From reviewing their recent edits, it seems they have engaged in similar behavior against others as well. Making more people in the community aware of their behavior and documenting the relevant incidents may lead them to modify it.
There is a long history to this issue, involving WastedTime refusing to engage in discussion and simply asserting his/her will, as I document below and in greater detail on my Talk page (I also provide a log of the relevant edits and reversions). WastedTime’s and Bobblehead’s actions have violated the law and spirit of wikipedia policies and rules, including “gaming the system”, “"Abuse of process “, “Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community.” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system), and “clearly fail[ed] to respect "consensus" on this issue, given that no disagreements were expressed in the discussions on this issue I had initiated on Jan 6 and Jan 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus). Additionally, both Bobblehead and WastedTime on Feb. 18 appear to have acted in concert so that neither one would be in violation of the “three revert” rule – which would also be a violation of the spirit of this rule. Yes, I broke the 3 reverts rule, unknowingly. In contrast, WastedTime and Bobbleheadwere aware of the rule and violated the spirit of it, as well as engaging in violation of the law and spirit of other rules and policies. It was very disingenuous of Bobblehead to have me blocked for violating the “three-revert” rule, when both Bobblehead and WastedTime themselves are guilty of violating it and other rules (this “block” also prevented me from participating in this discussion begun on Feb. 18). For now, I will not pursue additional avenues of dispute resolution related to their violation of these rules (other than placing warnings on their Talk pages) but I will not hesitate to pursue these avenues if their behavior does not change.
Here’s the history:
On January 6, 2008 I posted in the discussion section of this page that I felt the official results (which are expressed to two decimal points) should be posted (link to archive Discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&oldid=185350822) . On January 18, since no one had expressed a different opinion, I made the change. Rather than engaging in discussion, on Jan. 18 WastedTime simply surreptitiously reverted my change (WastedTime was well aware that I had initiated discussion because s/he had replied to my Jan 6 discussion point, seemingly agreeing with me). On Jan. 19, I again made the change and in my Edit Summary, pointed out that I had initiated a discussion. Again, rather than engage in discussion on this issue, on January 19 WastedTime surreptitiously reverted this change again. WastedTime also surreptitiously reverted my changes on Feb. 1, Feb. 7, and twice on Feb. 18 – never replying to the Discussion I had initiated on Jan. 19. On Feb. 18, Bobblehead also twice reverted my changes. I was unaware of the three revert rule, and quite simply, was very frustrated with WastedTime’s repeated surreptitious reversions of my edits.
From reviewing some of the "editing" and “reversions” of others WastedTime has done on the Hillary Clinton page, I feel that WastedTime sometimes only respects his/her own "style" choices; there doesn't seem to be much room in his/her world for different styles of writing, reporting results, etc. Such an view of oneself, however, does not make one the authority on "stylistic" issues. While I respect the valuable contributions WastedTime has made to the page, this "controlling" attitude has likely prevented others from making contributions which are just as valuable. This ongoing battle has really quelled my enthusiasm for wikipedia, and shown me how some can get away with violating policies very easily. Such people make wikipedia very frustrating for those who encounter them, and many who could be making valuable contributions simply cease to contribute, rather than carry on a ridiculous battle with them on a fairly clear issue, much less to carry on the very time-consuming dispute resolution process! Accurate reporting adds 9 total characters to the page (including the decimal point) and makes it clear that 2nd and 3rd places in this contest were very close (which is relevant if someone wants to use wikipedia as a source of information - or is that not a goal of wikipedia? I thought it was.)
Bobblehead and WastedTime have so frequently worked together in concert on this page that I have wondered whether they are one and the same person; at the very least, if they are two people, they have a very strong relationship of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" and back each other up all the time (perhaps they're a couple?). Hardly makes for good editing.
The TIME I have been forced to WASTE, simply to get Official Iowa Democratic Caucus results reported on this page, is absolutely ridiculous. It’s diminished the time I could contribute to wikipedia in other ways. I will definitely continue to pursue resolution of the greater issues of following rules and policies, and will continue to monitor the page to ensure that one of them doesn’t surreptitiously make changes in the future which go against the consensus reached on this particular issue (their past behavior suggests that they may). Zzalzzal (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Zzalzzal: I got your email raising some of these issues as well as reading what you present here. I have some feedback. I think it would help if you use wiki formatting instead of html formatting, as it makes it easier to respond... I also think it would help if you work on trying to be more concise. I am wordy, I admit it, but I found your statement hard to follow due to length. What I gleaned from it I found myself not agreeing with. I think you really should assume good faith here instead of a conspiracy between Bobblehead and Wasted Time... that you (and I) didn't agree with the initial choices of how to present this material doesn't at all mean they are editing in bad faith, or that they are colluding (after all, there is disagreement on how to present the percentages!). I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
To be clear: Whatever sins I have committed regarding this issue, or on this article in general, are mine and mine alone. I had no communication with Bobblehead on this issue nor have I had any outside contact with Bobblehead on any other issue. Whatever little communication I've had with him/her on any issue, you can find in our talk pages. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on that. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I can see where Zzalzzal got that impression as I also ran into it with the first 13 comments here. But I am sure that it's simply similar opinions rather than anything organized. They are both independent and good contributors. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No Native American heritage
I've reviewed IGI and Ancestry.com and see no proof whatsoever of Native American heritage. Unless you can provide any proof this should be removed.
DS 02/18/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.103.239 (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've moved HRC's "possibly" claim on this to a footnote, and added that no geneology sites verify it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've taken out the second half. Lack of confirmation is not confirmation of lack. Also, the claim very much amounts to original research. Does any of us even know all geneology sites? If there is a reliable source that doubts her ancestry, or makes a claim about the lack of verifiability, we can include that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
And are these genealogy sites even reliable sources? --Bobblehead(rants) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm 61/64th Native American DIB (degree of Indian blood) and I just researched myself. Neither ISI nor ancestry.com can confirm my heritage, much less my DIB.--Subwoofer (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This site states the NA ancestry can't be found. But I'm okay with your change. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Which 2 Laws Enacted as Senator?
As of 20 February 2008, govtrack.us indicates "Hillary Clinton has sponsored 354 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 307 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1723 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)."
Which 2 of the bills authored by her were enacted into federal law? Could someone please include that successful legislation under the Senator section of her article?
I have no idea which bills these were. Sounds like a good thing for you to research and tell us. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I found this but can't see where any were enacted. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
False Information
The present article on Hillary states that she is currently in a close contest with Barack Obama for the Democratic party nomination. This is simply not true. Obama is on a roll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.233.130 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Close by historical measures of modern nomination contests, yes. Close by current pundit talk, no. But I'm okay with removing it; we'll know soon enough one way or another. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was right to remove it. It's still too early to call this contest, which makes it a "close contest". --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed it. The claim of a close race was unsourced so probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. The fact is she is in contest with Obama, whether it is close or not is up to debate. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There's certainly a change in the wind, but I'd still rather wait until after Texas and Ohio on March 4. Still, it's not a huge thing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it as a big deal either. I just feel that it would be better not to make a generilaztion about how close the race is. There is plenty of information concerning the raw numbers and we should leave it up to the reader to decide if it is close or not. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Daniel J. Levick. I don't know why these types of generalizations ever come into a BLP in the first place. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.channel4.com/film/media/film/2l/S/serial_mom_lg_01.jpg){kind=link}