Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Hillary as a College Republican

I tagged Hillary as a Category:College Republicans, since she was one while she was in college. [1] Yeah, she's a Democrat now, but the category is for anyone who was in a College Republican during college. I hope this tag isn't controversial.--RedShiftPA (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, her College Republican past is well known and discussed in this article. I had to fix your writing above, though: when writing about categories, you have to use the [[:Category:Foobar]] form, to avoid making a category inclusion here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Need to remove "she is a white supremace"

Needs to be removed. Page currently locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.60.174 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalisms like these are almost always reverted within a minute or two, as this one was. Clear your browser cache if you're still seeing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Polarization revisited

I have restored a substantially reworked, revised, and newly cited version of the "Cultural and political image" section, with a complete overhaul of the material on polarization that caused unhappiness above. I've now based the discussion of polarization on political science's definitions and uses of the term, and I've described that it is an objective, measured state that political science uses to gauge the response of the electorate to a political figure; it is not a value judgment upon or negative assessment of a political figure. I've cited a half dozen scholarly articles, papers, and books in the field that directly support this description in general and measurements about the response to Clinton in particular. Scholarly sources are the most highly ranked by the WP:RS and WP:SOURCES guidelines. I haven't found any scholarly sources that argue that Hillary Clinton has not received a polarized response from the electorate, but will welcome hearing of one if it exists. And it will be very interesting to see what gets published in the field analyzing the electorate's response to her presidential campaign. I have reduced the coverage of the popular media's references to polarization, since it tends to be less precise and more subject to advocacy, but I have included a reference to contrarian arguments occasionally being made there. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the person who originally brought up the question a few weeks ago. On the talk page. I haven't contributed to the main page. I have since registered with this website. I read through what you say. You are to be commended for a great deal of work and research. However I'm still not completely comfortable. Perhaps it is just because I am very ambivalent about Hillary myself(I prefer Obama to Hillary, but I prefer Hillary to McCain). I can't think of any political figure other than her husband who I am more ambivalent about than Hillary. This is subjective on my part. I realize that according to the data you put up I'm in a minority. But I really think it is debatable if the concept of "polarizing" is really a black and white thing. It is still a hypothesis or a theory that she is polarizing. I still think there are questions. I won't be editing or adding anything on the main page. Let's see what other people think, if they have anything to say.JonErber (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Jon Erber

Thanks for your response. One interesting result that I included was from the Sulfaro paper, which analyzes the "thermometer feeling" data, which allows for more subtlety of reaction than the usual fave/unfave poll. It finds that data clumps in the "very positive", "very negative", and "ambivalent/neutral" ranges, with noticeably less in the "somewhat positive" and "somewhat negative" ranges. This shows that you are not alone, and indeed I would suspect that many of the conflicting views that the general population has about HRC, can also co-reside within a single person, thus leading to ambivalence of reaction. Nevertheless, this distribution still qualifies as polarized, as Sulfaro states outright. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
As for your concern about polarization being a hypothesis or theory, political scientists don't see this as a postulated theory that explains natural behavior, like Newton's laws of motion. Rather it's simply a measurement of political behavior; the physics equivalent would be that science's measurements, such as acceleration. Now you're right that political scientists don't seem to have a black-or-white cutoff line for when they term a response to a political figure as polarized versus not polarized, just like physics doesn't have a cutoff line for "low accelaration" versus "high acceleration". But HRC's responses are so clearly at one end of the range (e.g. 50-point partisan differences both as first lady and senator, which are among the highest ever for presidents, much less those positions; there are some senators, such as McCain, with near-zero differences), that no scholar I've read has any qualms about terming the response to her as polarized. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that entire section should be removed. It adds nothing encyclopedic, it's completely superfluous and it comes across as pseudo-intellectual magnifying glass type analysis. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr Grant Evans 2, you've hated everything about this article from the first time you showed up here. Your first edit here was to try to get Bill and Monica's cigar into the article. Your other main content activity has been to try to get Peter Paul's discredited video into the article because it could "result in a future impeachment of Hillary if elected". You have said that Hillary is a "fantastically highly skilled actress,media manipulator and warrioress delivering a killing blow to her opponent", which events have shown to be a ridiculous perspective. You have slapped numerous pov tags on the article for no good reason. And so on. So to be honest, I don't care in the slightest what you think about this section. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
WastedTime, I think it's important to try to avoid Ad hominem deflections. My critique of the section still stands. Your personal accusations have included some so silly (such as I am a SPA)[2] that I am simply not going to respond to any of them. Your response (as well as your single-handed creation of the section in question)does little more than substantiate my view that we have a huge problem with this article in terms of a flagrant disregard of an important Wikipedia policy: namely Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Other editors brought up the obvious pov involved with your "polarizing" categorization of the subject of this BLP, not me. Rather than accept that and move on, you chose to reconstruct the polarizing categorization in such a way as to try to get it into the article which I think is yet another example of the article ownership which exists right now with this BLP. The first sentence in our policy: "Some contributors feel very possessive about material...that they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders." immediately springs to mind when one considers your immediate reaction to the concerns of other editors, which included:"I'll be back with it though, probably after her campaign is over and things are less sensitive." your persistence in doing a re-write, and your aggressive personalized response to my comment about the re-write. I'd prefer to address the policy issue (you are not the only frequent editor here who ignores the policy)with this article rather than the Ad hominem stuff. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to make it clear to others, my previous response to User:Mr.grantevans2 was not just to his comment here, but to his summarily deleting the entire section with this edit at the same time (it was restored two minutes later by an admin). Wasted Time R (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles problem

I think we have a big problem with this policy being disregarded by several hard-working contributors in the development of this BLP. The disregard of the policy has been consistent throughout the past few months as exemplified most recently here,here and here. Perhaps of more importance is the tendency of many others to just let it happen because the product (BLP) turns out to read pretty damn good: the so-called "sausage making" rationale. My point is that all Wikipedia policies should be adhered to because in the long run the article will be better if all policies are adhered to. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything that comes close to violating WP:OWN in the two sections you link to... Just your standard content disagreement... Just because you aren't getting your way, it doesn't mean there are ownership issues...--Bobblehead (rants) 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this shows clearly how dominated "owned" the article is. Of those who have edited the article in 2008, Wasted Time and Tvoz stick out in the statistics.

User # edits

Wasted Time 1313

Tvoz 192

(Other contributors who have edited in 2008 provided less than 50 edits each). Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, why don't you see how many of those edits were reverting of vandalism and the like, before you criticize editors for active maintenance of an article. And you might check to see what other articles we've edited heavily, lest you draw any untoward conclusions about neutrality or lack of it. Tvoz |talk 20:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is that Wasted Time R and Tvoz edit this article a lot.. WTF gives a crap how many times they edit the article? It means absolutely nothing in regards to WP:OWN, it just means they have an interest in improving and maintaining this article. Seriously, that has to be one of the least informed comment I have seen on Wikipedia in ages. Thanks for the laugh though. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So if I understand Mr.grantevans2 correctly, the fact that these two editors put a lot of work into an article is a violation of policy. Sorry, but that is frankly ludicrous. Have either of these editors engaged in edit-warring, left comments on talk pages suggesting that this is "their" article, chased other editors away from the article, or anything of that nature? The mere fact that they are active contributors in no way violates WP:OWN; on the contrary, every article should be so lucky as to have such dedicated editors. Unless you have something which actually suggests a violation of policy, this has to be one of the worst assumptions of bad faith I've ever come across. faithless (speak) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Unilaterally bringing back into the article a view which was removed by consensus is what I'd call "possessive" and you can see that clearly with this and this. The insistence by the primary editor on pushing the term "polarizing" against obvious consensus is just 1 example of what I'd say fits with the policy description of "possessive" about the article's contents. There are many other examples. Obviously, if others do not feel that there is a problem with 1 or 2 editors having the vast,vast lead in the number of edits here (with very few being indicated as "minor") and then using persistency to reintroduce their own views after consensus was established against that view (as with the "polarizing" categorization of the subject of this BLP) then maybe there isn't a problem. I want to repeat that I think that all editors here are operating withgood faith but that doesn't mean that any of us might not unintentionally hurt the article or trespass over a policy which is what I think has happened here and I want to emphasize that I use the word unintentionally. There is inherently nothing at all wrong with persistency nor putting a lot of work into the article. The polarization episode is what I am saying is an example of a possible ownership problem and I'd like to hear some kind of response related to the way that was handled. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
'number of edits' has no probative value, much like editors listing how many search results are returned for terms entered into google. for example, the highest number of edits i've done on an article are on Barry Bonds, the overwhelming majority reverting vandalism. the second highest number of edits i've done to an article are on Barbara Boxer, and most of those were in a "massive overhaul" of the article to convert bare url cites to proper inline web-cites, fix grammar and typos, etc., with almost no content changes to speak of. 'number of edits' simply doesn't tell us a single useful thing. Anastrophe (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The polarization material was not just reintroduced into the article, it was heavily revised with a more solid explanatory and scholary foundation, then put back in. And there was never a consensus to remove all the material on polarization. TS01D was ok with having it in the body of the article, just not in the lead section, and I have not put it back into the lead (I'm not that much a glutton for punishment!). Classicfilms wanted in part some mention of the contrarian view, and I have included the Estrich cite she gave. Looneymonkey, CouldOughta, and I were all in favor of the material. Earlier comments higher up about polarization were all based on the notion that it's a subjective, negative thing that's said about someone, when that just isn't the case, as I've made clear in the newly revised material. Political scientists measure that some political figures receive a more polarized response than others the way that astronomers measure that some stars have different chemical elements in them than others. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of what we're seeing in the "polarizing" debate is the problem of facts about opinions. For an example in another field, see the Talk:Michael_Jordan discussion on what to say about MJ being the "greatest player of all time" (GOAT). The fact that Senator Clinton is a polarizing figure is an important part of her political life which cannot reasonably be omitted from any encyclopedia article about her. We can expect political scientists to be studying this effect for years to come. It is true that the first two paragraphs of the Cultural and Political Image section have a pedantic, original-researchy feel. However, looking at the edit history of the article, which includes repeated discussions of the propriety of the "polarizing" material, the pedantry appears necessary to prevent casual editors from simply deleting the material as POV when clearly it is not. We can feel free to debate whether or not to include the "polarizing" material (though as I have said, to me it's a no-brainer that it must be included), but the pedantic material at least settles the POV matter by showing objectively the measures and published evaluations showing the "polarization" to be an objective fact. If Obama wins, hits on this page will drop off, and the pedantry can be pruned back without reigniting the firestorm.

Regarding the "ownership" question directly, I see little merit in Mr.grantevans2's complaint. Both Wasted Time R and Tvoz have repeatedly shown tolerance for changes (as in the example immediately below), consistently adhered to Wikipedia:AGF, and backed off when consensus was against them.CouldOughta (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the pedantry, in a better world the Polarization (politics) article is where the explanatory discussion should be, except that article is woefully inadequate right now and readers wouldn't always click to there anyway. Regarding original research, if I do that you'll know it! I could establish a new response metric based on frequency and nature of Wikipedia vandalisms to the articles of political figures (I've seen several published papers that analyze Wikipedia content and editing practices, the WP people give legit researchers access to their database). If I concatenated all the vandalisms and rants to the Hillary article I've seen over the last three years, it's pretty amazing the depth of visceral hatred some people have for her. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Commencement Address and footnotes

I just noticed in the introduction to the article the word "controversial" is used. If such a remark is used I think it should be footnoted to back up this assertion. I read Carl Bernstein's biography and as I remember it she struck a middle ground in the late 1960s between violent student radicals and conservatives. She did criticize Senator Brooke who had just spoken before her because he was somewhat critical of the antiwar movement. I might possibly be a catalyst for dispute here but I think this is important since this is at the top of the page. JonErber (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, the article doesn't really back up that assertion, so I've removed the "controversial". It would take a paragraph to describe the different viewpoints on her address; some of the objections to what she said were sort of on grounds of rudeness to Brooke's presence, not content per se. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Comeback kid" vandalism

A search for "comeback kid" currently redirects here. I don't know how to fix this...someone?

66.202.154.33 (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Queries regarding Cultural and Political Image

MrGrantEvans2, since you trying to remove the entire "Cultural and Political Image" section, let me ask you how you believe the Hillary Rodham Clinton article as a whole should deal with the following content matters, the ones the section currently covers:

  1. the polarized response to her from the public, something that has been remarked upon by many popular media articles as well as measured and analyzed by scholarly articles
  2. how her reception as First Lady was influenced by gender roles and norms in America, something that has again been the subject of considerable popular media attention as well as a number of scholarly articles
  3. the existence of a huge number of negative books published about her, and her frequent use as a negative subject by Republican fundraising efforts
  4. the role gender has played in her presidential campaign.

Do you think the article should not mention any of these items at all? If it should not, do you think the resulting article will accurately convey to readers here, abroad, and in the future, the role that Hillary Clinton played in American public life and the kind of response she received from the American public? If it should, how do you think the material should be organized in the article? Inline with the biographical/historical text in the appropriate chronological places? In a separate section, such as this one? Or as a separate article, linked to from this one?

You said above that the revised section, including the greater reference to academic work and scholarly articles, was "pseudo-intellectual". Do you believe there is no place for reference to academic work in Wikipedia? In Wikipedia articles about politics? In just this article? Do you question the credentials of the academics quoted and referenced in this section? Or do you think the work and articles referenced here have been inaccurately represented in the section's text?

Perhaps if I better understand your objections to this material we can avoid reversions of the entire section. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I simply think you should have done what you originally said you would do which was try a rewrite after the election. Also, you should gain consensus for the rewrite before reincluding it. If Lulurascal, TSO1D, and Classicfilms accept it then so will I. JonErber (above) did not endorse the rewrite as far as I can tell either. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
So in other words, you yourself have no real content issues with this material, just process issues? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think personal labels are generally useful in an encyclopedia BLP unless they are almost universally accepted which "polarizing" is not. However, I'll abide by the consensus. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Process discussion for Cultural and political images section

MrGrantEvans2, let us now focus on the "process" issues regarding the "Cultural and political image" section. In some of your edit summaries yesterday removing the entire section, you said "No consensus on talk page (Polarization revisited) to resurrect the [section]" and "your last edit summary exposes the problem with article ownership. your opinion does not a consensus make."

First, per the comments above, no one besides you so far has said there is an article ownership problem here.

Second, as I point out above, this section has four different subjects in it, not just "polarization". In the over-five-month history of this section, no one besides you has objected to any of the gender/First Lady, publishing industry/fundraising target, or gender/presidential campaign material.

Third, regarding the polarization material, none of the editors expressing objections to the earlier version of it, advocated removing it entirely from the article. Instead, they either wanted mention of it taken out of the lead, or wanted the section material on it modified to meet their concerns.

The lead is no longer an issue, as I concede it shouldn't be there and didn't put it back there. I vowed to re-research, reframe, and rewrite the polarization material in the section, to clear up the misconceptions and objections people had to it.

Then I made a process mistake on my part. I removed the entire section pending the rewrite, when I should have just removed the polarization part, or left it all in and put an "underconstruction" or "inuse" tag on it, or something. Okay, I screwed that up. But let us not make that into a red herring — no one was then arguing for removing the entire section or all of the polarization material. If that is your basis for arguing that there's no consensus for my restoring the reworked version two weeks later, it doesn't hold any water.

You have now tried four different times to delete the entire revised section. As I have made clear here, there is no consensus whatsoever for that severe an action. We don't have a process issue here, we have a content issue. And since you are by far the biggest critic of the content, that's why I'm trying to engage you on it above. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I simply think you should have done what you originally said you would do which was try a rewrite after the election. Also, you should gain consensus for the rewrite before reincluding it. If Lulurascal, TSO1D, and Classicfilms accept it then so will I. JonErber (above) did not endorse the rewrite as far as I can tell either. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
My "after the election" remark was exasperation on my part at the time. In reality, if material is fair, neutral, accurate, etc., then it belongs in the article now as well as later. (Do you want to remove all of the Whitewater references from the article until her campaign is over?) Since none of Lulurascal, TSO1D, and Classicfilms argued for removing the entire section (show me a single edit where they did), or even removing all of the polarization material (instead they wanted its presentation altered, or it taken out of the lead section, both of which I tried to address in the rewrite), I cannot see why the entire section should be held hostage to their approval. And since you keep deleting the entire section from the article, they may not know where to find it. And while I'm interesting in assuaging the concerns of those editors, they by themselves do not form the entire consensus on the matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Solicitation of opinions from previous "polarization" objectors

MrGrantEvans2, completely unresponsive to either of these talk pieces, has now tried to remove the entire section (including the non-polarization parts) for a fifth time. He has also asked that I contact the three previous objectors to the "polarization" part of this section, Lulurascal, TSO1D, and Classicfilms, to see their opinion on the rework, which I have done (the fourth objector, an IP address who became JonErber, already gave his opinion on the rework above). I am interested to hear what they have to say, and if they still have issues with the rework, to suggest specific measures about how it can be improved. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Just wanted to weigh in here quickly. I've still watchlisted this page, though I've refrained from editing here after being continually attacked by Evans. His attempts to savage this article, to have it removed as a GA, and general disruptiveness here have been well-documented. Anyone who opposes these efforts is smeared as "owning" the article, or as a Clinton apologist, or worse. (As I can't stand HRC, and strongly support Obama, I have found some of the accusations he's leveled at me quite laughable. I'd vote for a potted plant before I'd vote for HRC; I just want this article to be the best it can be, and have resisted his attempts to make it otherwise.) I find this current dispute to simply be more of the same from Evans, and wanted to weigh in to support inclusion of the section in question. Regards, Bellwether BC 23:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Bellwether,I'd like to see the diffs where I "smeared" you as owning the article or being a "Clinton apologist" (you can put them on my talk page which is a more appropriate spot for this type of stuff,maybe).All I think I've said about you is that you deflect discussion into the area of ad hominem which is what you are doing right here yet again. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No. I'm done dealing with you. Bellwether BC 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Wasted Time has already posted my comment above from his talk page. Unless someone has a specific question for me, I don't really have much more to add to it except that I'm fine with the re-write. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I made a minor tweak to the first sentence of the section and added a reference, since both references already appear on the presidential campaign page. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. When I did the rewrite, I looked at the Lanny Davis Hill piece, and was a little queasy about its WP:RS-ness, given that he's a longtime Clintons employee/backer. But it does have interesting stats about the frequency with which HRC has been labeled polarizing, so I included it in the first list of cites as well. The Davis piece also suffers from the idea that receiving a polarized response makes one unelectable; in fact, as the Jacobson book shows, the three presidents with the highest partisan polarization since 1953 are Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, all of whom got re-elected. I've added a statement to try to make this clear as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Cultural and political image" section

This section suffers from substantial WP:SYN violations and much editorializing. This is a biography, not an essay, or an op-ed. I have tagged it accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, could you be specific about some particular instances of WP:SYN violations? I was aware of the dangers of synthesizing when I was writing it, and tried to be careful to avoid it. That's why, for example, I included the direct quote from the Sulfaro paper, to show that political scientists have directly stated that she has receives polarizing response, and that I wasn't concocting an 'A' and a 'B' together. Can you give some specific instances where you think the section is editorializing? Do you think the topics of the nature of the response to Clinton from the public and the reactions to her role as First Lady are inappropriate for Wikipedia altogether, or are just misplaced in this biographical article and would be better in a different article? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As a guess, the biggest offense here is where I try to explain what political scientists mean by polarization, how it's not a negative thing, etc., before I get to the measurements of the public reaction to HRC. This can be cured by moving the explanatory material to the Polarization (politics) article, which could use some strengthening anyway, and just referencing that from here. That also has the advantage of making this section shorter and more concise. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, here are some examples of WP:SYN violations:
  1. This passage: he term polarizing comes from political science, where it is a measure of the electorate's response to a political figure or position;[321] it is not an assessment of, or a value judgment upon, a political figure. It does not mean that a political figure is necessarily unelectable.[322] Political figures can receive a polarized response through actions of their own,[323] through historical trends or accidents,[323] or due to external forces such as media bias.[324] Political scientists principally measure polarization in two ways.[325] One is popular polarization, which happens when opinions diverge towards poles of distribution or intensity.[321] is a WP:SYN violation. You are citing sources that have not addressed polarization related to the subject of the article. Good for an essay, or an op-ed, but not a WP article on the subject
  2. This passage, ditto: The other form that political scientists examine is partisan polarization, which happens when support for a political figure or position differentiates itself along party lines.[323]
  3. This passage, ditto: Popular media expressions of the polarized response to Clinton have often focused on gender themes. During her husband's 1992 presidential campaign, a reporter asked her, "Some people think of you as an inspiring female attorney mother, and other people think of you as the overbearing yuppie wife from hell. How would you describe yourself?"[314] A columnist suggested she could be easily seen as either a positive role model or a nagging "hall monitor" type.[314] In 1995, after the failure of her health care reform initiative, another reporter labeled Clinton "the First Lady as Rorschach test,"[315] an assessment echoed by feminist writer and activist Betty Friedan.[331] Polarization can also occur along gender lines; Burrell's study found women consistently rating Clinton more favorably than men by about ten percentage points during her First Lady years.[327]
  4. This passage, ditto: The polarized response to Hillary Clinton has been reflected in the publishing and fundraising worlds. Over fifty books and scholarly works have been written about Hillary Clinton, from many different angles. There has been a cottage industry in attack books against her, put out by Regnery Publishing and its brethren, with lurid subtitles such as Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House, Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House, and Can She Be Stopped? : Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President of the United States Unless ....[334] When she ran for Senate in 2000, a number of fundraising groups with dire-sounding names such as Save Our Senate and the Emergency Committee to Stop Hillary Rodham Clinton sprang up.[335] She was a reliable bogeyman of Republican and conservative fundraising letters, on a par with Ted Kennedy (who finished first in Jacobson's study of partisan polarization among senators) and the equivalent of Democratic and liberal appeals to fear of Newt Gingrich.[336]
And so on. Per WP:SYN:

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for these instances. The first two I believe I can deal with as I mentioned above, by moving the political science explanations to the Polarization (politics) article, where they belong and are appropriate. Then I will just reference scholarly articles that directly say, "Clinton received such-and-such kind of response during such-and-such period." On the third and fourth ones, do you object to the connection of "polarization" theme to the gender theme descriptions and the publishing/fundraising descriptions, or do you object to the gender and publishing/fundraising descriptions themselves? If the latter, then let me ask: Do you consider the fact that someone has had more 'attack books' published against them than almost anyone else during her time is a notable fact to include in a biography? And she was consistently used as a fundraising target by the other party? If so, how do I introduce these facts in a way that will pass muster? Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You can certainly mention that books have been published, but you cannot describe them as a group of "attack books" unless you have a source that describes these books as "attack books". You cannot make a connection between "polarization" and sources that are related to gender theme descriptions, unless you have a source that makes that connection, in which case you would attribute that connection to the source that holds that opinion, instead of asserting that as a fact. Ditto about the fund-raising. To fix that section, you will need to do very serious trimming, staying as close as possible to the sources and avoiding advancing a position. (BTW, I agree with the text and with the synthesis in that section, as I believe the senator to be a polarizing figure, but that does not mean that I can use this article to advance my opinion on the matter. I would publish that on my blog, but not here. )≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will keep working on this. For what it's worth, I am not trying to advance any position of my own here. (Of course I can't prove that, you'll just have to believe me ;-) My motivations for the section are twofold: First, I've been working on this article for three years and I've long felt that the straight bio sections in the rest of the article it do not give the reader from some foreign land, or the young reader who doesn't know about the 1990s, or the future reader 20 years from now, a real "feel" for what the interaction was between HRC and the American public, and the extremes to which that interaction often reached (and sometimes still does). Almost every published biography of Clinton has tried to capture this, and our article should too. Second, a good deal of academic/scholarly work has been published on HRC. Since scholarly journals and books are highly valued by WP:RS and WP:V, and since they often bring well-measured and useful insights into the HRC/American public interaction, I'm trying to find a way to incorporate them, and not have the article rely quite so much on the typical Time magazine article/Washington Post story/popular biography sources that it currently does. During the FAC for this article a while back the same desire was voiced for more scholarly sources, and I agree. So, as I said, I'll keep working on it, with more exacting conformance to your points above as I go. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A good first step would be to remove all the WP:SYN and editorializing and slowly wave in the many sources that you have collected, in a simple yet straightforward narrative that describes the opinions in these sources while staying as close to as possible to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi, much of this section reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. The text is well-written and very well sourced, but parts of it should be rewritten. The examples provided by Jossi are good examples of this. This is especially true of the first part of the section, where the basic structure is to enumerate various manifestations of polarization and how they apply to Hillary. I think that a bit of restructuring would help. For instance, you can begin with something like "Hillary Clinton has frequently been featured in the media and popular culture from a wide spectrum of perspectives and she has often been described as a polarizing figure." Then describe how she has often provided a heated topic of discussion for both supporters and critics, some of the praise and criticism and provide some analysis for whether she is polarizing and why. TSO1D (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for responding to my poll for feedback on the revised version and for your structural suggestions. As soon as I have some time and a fresh brain, I'll start at it ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable for someone to remove all the WP:SYN and editorializing, as Jossi suggests, right away rather than leave it there with the tag? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow. You remove a nearly 20,000 character section, after FOUR DAYS with a tag?!? I'm restoring it, to give editors a chance to scrub any SYN problems. Bellwether BC 02:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok,Bellwether, if you think that's the best thing for the article, that's fine with me. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made (in three stages) my changes to this section for the WP:SYN and related criticisms, and will poll TSO1D and Jossi to take a look. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WastedTime, I do not think the tag should be removed before your poll results are in. I think the tag should remain. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
See #Kudos section below. Jossi gave his approval. Per Special:Contributions/TSO1D, TS01D has only made two edits in the last three weeks, so it may be a while before he/she responds to the poll. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think your edit summary on the article should say: "TS01D has become an inactive". I also do not see the rush to remove the tag without consensus which clearly does not exist right now. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The edit summary got cut off due to length ... it was going to say "TS01D has become an inactive editor lately". The tag was removed because the section was completely reworked and the person who put it on was okay with the revised section. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not see the rush to remove the tag without consensus which clearly does not exist right now. Once the tag was allowed to remain on the section for a considerable period, then I'd say it was a tag by a consensus rather than by an individual. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[out] We have been over this before - how many times do we have to state our positions? I still agree that the tag should not be on. The rework of the section was exceptional. You are still pushing your POV, as you have been for quite a while. Tvoz |talk 22:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The tag was "allowed to remain on the section for a considerable period" (a week or two, maybe) because it took several edits and some work to do that rewrite. There are thousands of tags that have been on WP articles for much, much longer than that! (Go to Wikipedia:Community Portal and look under "Here are some tasks you can do", if you really feel so strongly about cleaning up tags.) The tag goes off when the problem it was tagging goes away. This has absolutely nothing to do with "consensus". You're really reaching here, Mr.grantevans2. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

First Lady is not an "office"

The article says she was "in office" as First Lady during Bill Clinton's presidency, despite the fact that there is no such office. This wording is misleading, to say the least, and needs revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.192.118 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right that it's not formally an office. The only place where we say this is in the Infobox at the top right. That's an artifact of the infobox templates we are using, and all the other First Lady articles (Laura Bush, Betty Ford, Pat Nixon, etc.) also say "office". In other words, it's beyond the control of this particular article. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can't the Infobox template be changed to remove the terms "In Office" from all "First Lady" articles. In light of the election, I think the time and energy to have Hillary's article accurately represent her is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittybork (talk • contribs) 00:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Make your request to Template talk:Infobox Officeholder, not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Leading Candidate

Other users felt that the Barack Obama article would be free from bias if he was mentioned as "a" leading candidate. Since there are two leading candidates, that would also make Hillary "a" leading candidate.Scottmkeen (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Subject of heated disputes in past, check out Archive 10. I'm not touching it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

it says clinton is the "leading" candidate for the democratic presidential candidate which really isnt true in terms of delegates Some one should change that to "a"

Cheers

Chris [13:13, 6 March 2008 77.54.98.224]

Like I said. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently it lists HRC as "a leading candidate" but it doesn't list Obama as one, since obama's can't be changed to reflect him as "a leading candidate" she shouldn't be listed as one —Preceding unsigned comment added by DblHelixFelix (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, now someone has removed the "a" version three times, although I don't quite understand why. Ok, understand it now. It's not a good reason, though. Every article has to stand on its own. The fact that Barack Obama is locked has no bearing on this article. And please use better edit summaries in the future. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This again? Stephen is right - we went over this before: "a leading candidate" is still completely correct, and is entirely different from saying "the" leading candidate. And Stephen is also correct that what happens on Obama stays on Obama. We had consensus on "a leading" before - one dissenter now who is edit warring does not a new consensus make. Tvoz |talk 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't sweat the small stuff. I've read literally a hundred explanations for why Obama or Clinton has done well or poorly in this campaign, and not one of them has involved the precise wording of the lead sections of their Wikipedia articles. Barack Obama got locked down over stuff like this, that should be a lesson. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that "a leading candidate" is correct, in practice many readers are confusing it with "the leading candidate" and some are taking the "leading" out. This is giving us pointless churn for something that is going to disappear from the article, one way or another, in the next few months anyway. So I say as a practical matter, leave it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An addition of a navigation box to subarticles, directly below infoboxes

The title of the article for the 2008 Hillary Clinton Campaign is quite a mouthful and people interested in it likely come first to the main article. In the interest of facilitating users navigation between the main article and the campaign and positions subarticles I've improved WP by adding a nav box directly under the infobox. --Justmeherenow (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think this nav box is necessary, but I have changed the title away from "Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton", because the subarticles pointed to do not cover her whole life. This nav box was copied from the new set of John McCain articles, where every section of his life now has a subarticle, and the need for a linking nav box was necessary. The same idea doesn't really apply here. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. A "Life of" heading is often insufficient for subjects who merit more than one WP article---and along with strictly chronological subarticles, biographical series may contain treatments of the subjects' works and legacy as well: the more influential or noted-upon a person is, the more articles there will be. (Eg in the case of the "Muhammad" series there's treatment of his diplomacy, family, military leadership, interactions with slaves----etc. etc.!) --Justmeherenow (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Current components of the Hillary Rodham Clinton biographical series are
  • Living History' - autobiographical writing
  • Senate career · 2008 presidential campaign · Political positions - dealing with works and legacy

Any we ought delete? --Justmeherenow (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Scandal"

There is a reference to the "Whitewater Scandal".This should be taken out to read "controversy" as it is reflective of, or has the same title of the main article about Whitewater. It can be disputed as to whether or not a mountain was made out of molehill by the media and the Republicans while Hillary was First Lady. I might edit this myself.

I'm not even completely comfortable with the Monica Lewinsky affair being called a scandal. While Bill: 1. did have oral sex with Monica 2. was not forthcoming about Monica in Paula Jones' civil lawsuit 3. initially denied a relationship in public statements he made outside of legal proceedings, other charges(such as perjury to Starr's grand jury, obstruction of justice) against him were not proven.

The whole use of the word "scandal" and the suffix "gate" were constantly used while Hillary was first lady as part of what is seen by some as a media "feeding frenzy" or even a witch hunt by Republicans(including Starr)and I don't think wikipedia should necessarily reflect that. JonErber (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on Whitewater, I missed that, it should be "controversy". On Lewinsky, I'd disagree; if ever there was a spectacular sex/political scandal (that dominated the news for a year), this was it. Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Scandal, affair is the guidance on this matter. And the "gate" suffix habit has been with us since the mid-1970s, it did not arrive with the Clintons. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the reference to Whitewater that occurs near the top of the page. I'll check the rest of the article to see if there are more references that use the word scandal when applied to Whitewater.

I submitted a new discussion on the Lewinsky scandal page article. I will see how that goes and not make any changes here. I think "affair" is better than scandal. I'll look at that "words to avoid" guidance. But I would think that this site should be above tabloid style reporting. The media can shrug off allegations of bias but this site cannot. JonErber (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to work on anti-Clintonisms in Wikipedia, check out all the WP:COATRACK and WP:ONEEVENT articles on Whitewater figures, including Eugene Fitzhugh, John Haley, Larry Kuca, John Latham (Whitewater), Charles Matthews (Whitewater), Robert W. Palmer, William J. Marks Sr., Neal Ainley, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay I skimmed through this. I had never heard of any of these people. I am familiar with David Hale who is mentioned in some of these brief articles and as a Clinton supporter in one article. He was actually an enemy of Clinton, not a supporter or at least came to be one. He was the one who made allegations of criminal wrongdoing against the Clintons but he was apparently doing this to lighten his sentence. Obviously lots more people read the Hillary Clinton page than the notes on these characters. I suppose this paints a picture of Arkansas politics as a "swamp" but it doesn't really show that the Clintons did anything wrong in this whole thing. Although Clinton's pardoning Palmer is questionable, perhaps even suspect. Perhaps there was a scandal here involving others, assuming some of this is correct. I'm not familiar with these people. JonErber (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This Article is Currently Vandalized (3/5/08)

This article may require the use of security measures against vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.193.152 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

12 states

Hey the article said that obama had an 11 state straight win however it was 12. Vermont was called in his favour before she won her three. Technically he had a 12 state consecutive win over her. I have altered the article to show this. Realist2 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First Lady - office?

This comment is not specific to Hillary Clinton, but since it's where I noticed it, and she is getting quite a bit of attention lately, I posted it here. The first lady is not an office. It is an honorary title. While this may seem a small point, and I would normally agree, I think Hillary's election makes the distinction more important. To people who turn to Wikipedia for answers, it may appear that Hillary has more experience "in office" than she actually has. I suggest removing the phrasing "in office" from the "First Lady" section. Kittybork (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Make your request to Template talk:Infobox Officeholder, not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, there is actually an "Office of the First Lady" for her and her staff in the White House. I agree it should be clarified that this is not an appointed or elected position, but there also should be notice given that there is a physical business/organizational presence for the First Lady and that she don't just sit around knitting all day. Many first ladies (this one, among others) have also played significant roles in presidential administrations. I also feel that this article should be COMPLETELY locked from all non-admin editing. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The term "office" in the context above, "Office of the First Lady", is actually a reference to a location, not to a political position. If Wikipedia can be considered as somewhat of an authority, the term "Office" as used in the "First Lady" template is clearly erroneous, suggesting/implying as it does that "First Lady" is political position, not the social position that it actually is. As a Wiki-knowledgeable lead author on this article, wouldn't it be more reasonable for Wasted Time R to initiate the administrative steps necessary to have this egregious error in the "First Lady" infobox corrected, instead of tossing it to observant readers to do? K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This issue was already raised at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder#First Lady by the above Kittybork. A work-around was given by somebody there, but I haven't been able to use it to get rid pf the "in office"; I think maybe the issue was misunderstood, or maybe I am not understanding. Anyway, it's up to the unhappy ones to press this matter further, not me; I can live with the current state of affairs. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Accuracy is the heart of Wikipedia.  The crux of this matter is that the author of this article incorporated and misused the "Senator" infobox template in the article's text.  In the "Senator" infobox template the data line "second office" clearly refers an an elected or appointed office (eg., "Senate Majority Leader"), not to honorific titles like "First Lady".  If the "Senator" infobox is used, then the title of this article should properly be "Hillary Rodham Clinton (U.S. Senator)".  Since the article in question is clearly intended to be a biography of Hillary Rodham Clinton the person, not Hillary Rodham Clinton the U.S. senator, then obviously the correct and more accurate biography infobox template the author should have used is the "Person" template.  By using the "Person" tmplate, Clinton's time in the White House as the wife of the President can quite easily be incorporated in the template's "footnotes" data line, where placing the honorific "First Lady" would be quite acceptable. Bottom line: there isn't any need for a "workaround" solution or an appeal to Wiki administration for changes to the "Senator" infobox template.  The article simply needs to be edited for accuracy by deleting the "Senator" infobox and use the "Person" infobox in its place. K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole purpose of these infobox templates is to give Wikipedia a similar appearance and information structure across articles on similar topics. Thus we have many templates specialized to certain fields, such as Template:Infobox Musical artist, Template:Infobox scientist, Template:Infobox chess player, and so forth; you can see many more at Category:People infobox templates. Then we have subtemplates of those, handled via redirects, such that Template:Infobox Senator and Template:Infobox First Lady are both handled by Template:Infobox Officeholder. What you are suggesting, using Template:Infobox Person, is only appropriate as a "lowest common denominator" solution when there are no more specialized templates available. To retreat to that here would mean HRC's infobox would likely not match that of other first ladies or other senators. Not a good idea. Better is to pursue a fix to the Officeholder template for the First Lady text. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, you're wrong about article titles. The parenthetical additions are only used to disambiguate articles among multiple people with the same name, such as John Smith (Ohio Senator) versus John Smith (UK politician) versus John Smith (Ontario MP). Wasted Time R (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to make pronouncements, it might be best if you stopped for a moment to think about what you're saying.  re parentheticals and disambiguation, I don't know where you get the idea that there can only be one Wikipedia article about Hillary Ropdham Clinton.  FYI, I could very easily and without any objection write a separate and definitive Wikipedia article solely about Hillary Rodham Clinton and her Senate career, and legitimately and much more appropriately than here use the "Senator" infobox in my article.  I could title that article with parentheticals as either "Hillary Rodham Clinton (U.S. Senator)" or "Hillary Clinton (U.S. Senator)" whichever I preferred, and I could then add a link to my article from within this Clinton bio article as a "see also" link either following the title of a relevant section here, or following the text of that section. I would certainly make a request for a disambiguation page to be created to distinguish (disambiguate) my article from this article when a user enters either "Hillary Rodham Clinton" or "Hillary Clinton" or "Senator Clinton" or "Senator Hillary Clinton", and to delete whatever REDIRECTs have been created to redirect those terms to this article.  Also, for the correct use of a political infobox I suggest you take a moment to look at Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's bio for an example of how the 'offices' data line is supposed to be used.  To be editorially correct, there's nothing stopping you from adding a "First Lady" infobox after the "Senator" infobox if you wish to note Hillary Clinton as being the wife of President Clinton during his presidency. K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No. There actually is an article devoted to her senate career, and it's called Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton. It's a subarticle of Hillary Rodham Clinton per WP:SUMMARY style, and thus does not go through any disambiguation mechanism. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • My comment on your interpretation of the use of parenthesis in article titles was simply to point out your misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, i.e., you stated that he only use of parentheticals is to disambiguate article titles relating to persons with the same name.  As an author, you should be made aware that your statement simply isn't true.  Hopefully other authors won't be disuaded from using parenthesis in article titles when and where appropriate, and when done in accordance with existing Wikipedia/Wikimedia rules on their use. [en fin] K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to agree about the "in office" phrasing. It gives the status of "First Lady" undue weight. She was no more "in office" during that time than Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, or any other first lady. It makes it seem as if she had some official capacity within the administration, when she did not. Now, if Pres. Clinton appointed her to posts that have an official capacity, those should be noted and infoboxed. But the first lady portion should not read "in office", in my view. Bellwether BC 13:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, the problem exists across all FL articles — Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, and all the others say "In office" too. So HRC isn't being special-treated here. I agree it would be better if it said something else, I just don't feel as strongly about it as others do. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • After delving deeper, I noticed that. I've never worked with infoboxes before, but I think, with the number of First Ladies that we've had now, that there should be a dedicated infobox just for them. Bellwether BC 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama in Lead Text

"Clinton is the first woman in U.S. history to win a presidential party primary, and as the 2008 race takes place, she is in a contest with Senator Barack Obama for the nomination of the Democratic Party."

This is in the lead for the biography of a historic figure. It should be completely centric on the subject of the article, and I fail to see how the last part of that sentence about Obama is relevant. Her 2008 presidential campaign is noted in detail in a subsection, which includes her competitors. This sentence should be changed to something like:

"In 2008, Clinton became the first woman in U.S. history to win a statewide presidential party primary."

There is a separate article for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Don't confuse the two. This one is about her as a person, not her presidential campaign specifically. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Article title

This is the only article of the presidential candidates that includes the middle name in the candidate in its article. I think it should be removed from the title of this article. Yahel Guhan 06:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the archives on this - this is her official name, commonly used. See her signature, for example - and note that it is not her middle name which is Diane, it is her birthname. Also, please note that this is a biographical article about an individual - her whole life and career - not an article about her as a candidate, and what is done on the articles of other people running for President is not relevant. Tvoz |talk 06:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz is correct. This has been discussed many times and the current article title is correct. See here and here for two formal RfM's on the matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Dubya– and George Herbert Walker–sigs in their infoboxes are, the both of them, simply----"George Bush." Meanwhile, despite his WP article's title, what Pres. Gerald Ford apparently tended to sign his name as was fully "Gerald R. Ford."
So I googled both Hillary and Jerry combined with either Brittanica/New York Times and observe preference given thur person hrumsulf's preference. Can we do better?--Justmeherenow (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Every New York Times story, for example this one today, calls her "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on first reference, and then "Mrs. Clinton" afterwards. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
<Shakes head> OK people, work with us! What was asked was, Can we do better than Brittanica Encyclopædia and the NYTimes? (Adding my own rejoinder for the slow minded out there): No.
(I know, I know---assumptions make an ass out of you 'n' me; but nonetheless I'd previously assumed the average Wikipedian (that is, other than Mister "huh," Wasted Time R) able to follow--
  1. Should the NYT tend to go with individual preferences; and
  2. Should Hillary's preference be Hillary Rodham Clinton; then
∴ ........The NYT quite naturally would then tend to go with---Hillary Rodham Clinton. Oy!) --Justmeherenow (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Since Toz had just pointed out above that HRC commonly goes by Rodham Clinton, I thought the meaning of my saying that in HRC's and others' cases, the NYT seems to tend to go with individual's preferences, would be obvious. However, I'm going to take Wasted Time R's "huhs" written after my various talkpage comments (it seems---even if it's not---like about five times in a row now) as feedback offered in good faith and will attempt to break down what I'm arguing more clearly in the future. --Justmeherenow (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The 'huh' was in reference to your use of the words "thur" and "hrumsulf", which I was unfamiliar with. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
<laughs> I'm originally from Cali so "hrumself" must be some kind of San Fernando Valley speak akin to something maybe in Cockney for "him/her/themself"?? (Innit, guvnah?) Anyway, you would also have been clearer had you specified what it was you were confused about in my comment. And that's my feedback to you.
Anyway, please allow me to take my original comment from the top, if I may.
On an interesting side note, it seems that GHWB and GWB both signed their names "George Bush." (Which factor seems overridden encyclopedically by the need to differentiate.)
Also WP's article on Gerald Ford technically is probably misnamed, since the Encyclopædia Brittanica and NYT seem to prefer "Gerald R. Ford" and this it seems is also how he styled himself in his signatures.
However, as to the issue at hand, HRC's preference of Hillary Rodham Clinton is also what Brittanica and the NYT go by (and so should we, absent compelling reasons otherwise). --Justmeherenow (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some NPOV issues

"As First Lady of the United States, she took a prominent position in policy matters." From the lead section, this sentence is pretty much out of her campaign guide and Obama and his supporters have been questioning it for some time. The title to a section "A different kind of First Lady" doesn't comply with WP:NPOV#let_facts_speak_for_themselves though I find it hard to disagree. My main concern is with the first line I mentioned because there is clearly no widely held belief on the extent of her experience as first lady.User:calbear22 (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"she helped establish" NPOV?" (mostly, credit for SCHIP)

"As First Lady of the United States, her major initiative, the Clinton health care plan, failed to gain approval by the U.S. Congress in 1994, but in 1997 she helped establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program and the Adoption and Safe Families Act." This statement is subject to interpretation regarding the line, "she helped establish". I don't have any problem with the programs being in the article, let alone the lead, but the problem is that this choice of words is not clear in what her role was. Did she write the bills? Did she merely speak out in favor of them? Factually, I am not sure myself. That is why I am bringing this up here and seeking opinions/ fact-checking. Stealthound (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SCHIP, the Beth Fouhy AP article that the body of the article text gives as a cite was the best rundown I found of who did what on it. I think it's fair to say that HRC played a key role in its promotion and passage. Regarding the Adoption and Safe Families Act, I haven't looked into that in the past. The cite the article body gives, the National First Ladies' Library bio, makes it sound like she was single-handedly responsible for everything about it. This NYT story from 2000, on the other hand, says credit for the Act is somewhat contested, with Republicans saying it was their idea originally and Democrats saying HRC deserves the credit. Probably bears some more looking into. Of course nearly everyone gives HRC full credit for the 1993-1994 health care plan failure. As JFK once said, "Victory has a thousand parents, while defeat is an orphan." Wasted Time R (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "... nearly everyone gives HRC full credit for the 1993-1994 health care plan ..." might be due to the fact that she has steadfastly refused to comply with Congressional requests to divulge who worked with her on the development of the plan that was presented to Congress. Charlie Savage in his book Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency cites Clinton's refusal to do so, and the circumstances surrounding that refusal, i.e., her social position as First Lady in the Executive Office, as just one of many contemporary examples of the Executive Office working over the years to establish that office as an "imperial" Presidency, in which those in that Office view decisions by the Executive branch as not necessarily being subject to review and approval by Congress, i.e., that the people of the United States have no inherrent, absolute, Constitutional right to overrule the decisions of the President. In his book, Savage points out that there is a very strong trend now of the Executive Office to override Congress through the virtually unlimited power of the President, both legal and assumed, while acting in his or her role as Commander-in-Chief. This precept raises concerns about Hillary Clinton's frequent campaign references to the policies she will be able to put into effect as President, where she emphasizes the fact that she will be able to do so when and if she becomes "Commander-in-Chief" of the United States. Hillary Clinton's personal philosophy on the powers of the President, given her decade-long ambition to become the first female President of the United States, would certainly be, IMHO, a worthwhile addition to this article. K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
HRC's views on executive power relative to the other branches, if they can be properly cited, would be a useful addition to Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's now a new story regarding HRC's role in SCHIP, this one from the Boston Globe. If you look at it in conjunction with the previously mentioned AP story from Oct 2007, you'll see that they aren't really in opposition to each other. You can construct a narrative that encompasses the facts and testimonials from both, and indeed that's what I've done in the "History of original legislation" section of the State Children's Health Insurance Program article. I've restored the "helped establish" language for this in our article's lead section, but I've moderated the language, and added the Boston Globe cite, to the mention of this in the article body. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluefield made an edit to the lead section saying HRC's role in SCHIP was "undetermined" and added the Boston Globe cite there. First, that's out of style with the rest of the lead, which doesn't include footnotes and shouldn't include anything that's "undetermined". More importantly, the Boston Globe article, while valuable, is colored by the heavy rivalry with Obama at the moment and isn't the only source on this question; the AP article from last year, which allocates her a definite role in SCHIP, must be considered, as should other accounts. Our SCHIP article does this, and it's clear that HRC did have some role in SCHIP's evangelism and passage. Yes, Kennedy deserves most of the credit without doubt, yes Hatch deserves credit, and yes HRC may be exaggerating her role in the current campaign (what politician doesn't?), but in terms of the lead section's language "played a role in advocating for the establishment of ...", SCHIP is good to include. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And this recent article in Time also confirms what we're saying. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And now this new piece from FactCheck.org, which has the most extensive survey of accounts yet, summarizes: "We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the SCHIP legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality." The SCHIP article has already been modified to incorporate material from it. I will add it as a cite to this article, and make the wording a little stronger regarding her role. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would you "make the wording a little stronger" regarding her role? It is not clear that she played either no role, some role, a significant role, or was the all encompasing driving force behind SCHIP. It is better to say she played an "undetermined role", an "ambiguous role", a "self proclaimed vital role", etc. The conflicting reports show that it is unclear what role she actually played while she was the first lady. A "significant role" is simply too strong of a statement. Bluefield (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
We have three analyses (AP, Time, FactCheck) that say she played a significant role (all agree that Kennedy played the most important role). We have the Boston Globe analysis, which also says she played a role, but quotes Kennedy and several of his staff in trying to downplay her role. But Kennedy and his staff had praised her role at the time of its passage, and in years since; it's only now, that Kennedy is siding with Obama, that these statements downplaying her role emerge. Don't you think we should weigh such statements less than all the others? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
And in any case, your formulation for the lead section is inappropriate. We cannot have qualify sentences in the lead by saying "such and such is disputed". Either it belongs in the lead or it shouldn't be mentioned there at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, conjecture about a non-elected official's nebulous role in advocating for the passage of legislation should not be included in an encyclopedia entry. Your continued insertion of the phrase "signficiant role" is disputed by the fact that individuals involved in the process say she didn't play a major nor signficiant role, the fact that she was neither a legislator nor the president and therefore was unable to enact the legislation herself, etc. I'd leave it alone if you wanted to say she played "a role", but agrandizing her role into being "signficiant" reeks of original research or simple zealotry. Bluefield (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, I'll ignore the OR/zealotry charge. Let's get to your general point. Are you saying that people who are non-presidents and non-legislators never play a significant role, or some role, in getting a new law proposed, written, or passed? That no vice-president, cabinet member, military service member, lobbyist, or activist has ever had such a role? That would be a pretty broad claim; it doesn't exactly correspond to how power works in Washington, and a bunch of counter-examples could be assembled. True, because these people are more behind the scenes it's a bit harder to assess their role, but that's what journalists and writers do — ferret out who did what in shaping the legislative process. And then we can source their conclusions.

Now let's look at SCHIP. You say that HRC's role may have been "no role, some role, a significant role, or was the all encompassing driving force". Let's agree to eliminate the last choice, since all analyses agree Kennedy was the driving force. Let's survey our four analyses for what those journalists think in their summaries/conclusions:

  • AP article: While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady's pressure was crucial. "She wasn't a legislator, she didn't write the law, and she wasn't the president, so she didn't make the decisions," says Nick Littlefield, then a senior health adviser to Kennedy. "But we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."
  • Boston Globe article: Hillary Clinton ... had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue. ... And lawmakers in both parties acknowledge that administration support was needed and appreciated. But they said the effort was largely driven by Hatch, Kennedy, and others in Congress.
  • Time article: The record suggests Clinton did indeed lobby for children's health coverage but that many others were responsible as well. And it also shows that her husband nearly killed the idea before it ever got off the ground.
  • FactCheck.org article: We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the SCHIP legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality.

What to make of this? On your scale, on the surface these rate as "significant", close to "none", "some", and "significant" respectively. And the Boston Globe story relies heavily on Kennedy and Kennedy associates, which is colored by the rancor of the current campaign between HRC and the Kennedy-supported Obama, not to mention Kennedy feeling that HRC hasn't given him enough credit. As Factcheck and the other analyses point out, at the time and up until the campaign got heated, Kennedy and Kennedy associates did give HRC credit for a role in the passage.

So you tell me, what wording for her role in SCHIP would be okay with you, if not "significant"? At the moment, the article lead reads "played a role in advocating for the establishment of the <various acts>". That's basically a "some role" statement. If we restore SCHIP to that list, will that be okay with you? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

... No response. But since Bluefield above says, "I'd leave it alone if you wanted to say she played 'a role'," I'll restore SCHIP under that wording, which is all that we're using now anyway. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillary vs. Hillary Rodham page location

I see that the page location has been voted upon twice. Isn't the rule that a page is suppose to be named based on what readers are searching for. According to the new page view tool at http://stats.grok.se/en/200802

  • Hillary_Clinton has been viewed 646,899 times in 200802
  • Hillary_Rodham_Clinton has been viewed 216,743 times in 200802

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is supposed to named in such a manner that they are not confused when they make it to the page. That being said, your evidence does provide some data that maybe the common name for Clinton is changing from Rodham Clinton to just Clinton. Particularly if you look at the data for Dec-March. In December HRC got 15k more hits than HC did, but starting in January there was a 3 to 1 hit ratio on HC to HRC. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that we have the data, should I renominate this at WP:RM despite the overwhelming opposition noted in the template above?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Give it more time. Three months really isn't much time to determine the common name has changed. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of this may be a side effect of her using "Hillary Clinton" in her presidential campaign. Once the campaign is over, and she is either president or is once again just a senator, see if she reverts to using "Hillary Rodham Clinton" all the time. If she gets inauguarated and declares, "I want to be known as President Hillary Clinton, just that," we can move it. Also note that we don't want to move it and then move it back; as I pointed out in this discussion, the move will be a lot of work with a lot of ripple effects. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of it may also be how she's portrayed in the non-US media as the Presidential race is being followed globally. Certainly here in the UK she's virtually always been called "Hillary Clinton" regardless of whether the media is right wing, liberal, left-wing or aiming for non-bias. I'd guess that this is mainly because "Hillary Rodham Clinton, (surname Clinton)" is not a name form commonly used by women in this country and I don't think it's used in many other English speaking countries either. As for the knock-on effects, renaming subordinate articles in line with main article name changes is standard policy & precedent, and easy to sort, whilst the category bots can easily handle that side of things and again there's ample precedent for categories to be renamed in line with their main article. These should not be factors in deciding the name location. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, her surname is "Rodham Clinton", not "Clinton". Rodham is not her middle name - it's part of her surname. I'm saying this based on an image of her tax return... see this page, specifcally this image, from electoral-vote.com. Now, given her husband's article is at Bill Clinton, with a redirect at William Jefferson Clinton, this article should be at the commonly used "Hillary Clinton", with a redirect at "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Tompw (talk) (review) 13:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The IRS 1040 doesn't tell us anything ... unlike you English, us Americans have an impoverished imagination for different name forms, and the "first name, initial, last name" format of the 1040 doesn't accomodate the way HRC uses her name. So she had to improvise. It is most definitely not part of her surname; no publications in the U.S. refer to her as "Ms. Rodham Clinton" or "Mrs. Rodham Clinton" or "Senator Rodham Clinton". The New York Times refers to her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on first reference, and "Mrs. Clinton" on subsequent references, as you can see from any of their stories, such as this one today. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is there full protection on this article?

It would seem that, as a GA (one of the GA criteria is stability), this article should not have full protection unless there is a very good reason. If this article is being vandalized by established users, blocking may be a better alternative to protection. - Chardish (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the edit history. There were at least 6 established editors vandalizing recently. My take was that she's very controversial, though, now that I think about it, there's probably an adequate number of watchlists with this on it. —EncMstr 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with full protection. Full protection generally isn't used for vandalism. In this case, it is best dealt with by reverting, warning and blocking. There's no reason to punish good editors by placing the article on lockdown in the middle of an election, when frequent updates will be needed. I hope this can be lifted fairly urgently. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the first point: isn't that why George W. Bush is protected? But the latter points I agree with, so the article is now semi-protected, but still fully protected against page moves. —EncMstr 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Just to clarify, Dubya isn't fully protected, it's semi-protected, which is a perfectly reasonable response to prolonged vandalism. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have much interest in editing this article; the little gold lock caught my attention, though. - Chardish (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I know the full protection was lifted a few days ago, but I wanted to clarify that the vandalism didn't come from "established editors". The accounts that vandalized just before this article's brief full protection were not established editors. Rather, they were sleeper accounts created to evade semi-protection. Note that many such accounts have a few "good" edits in their early history, so that they're not blocked before they can attack semi-pro pages. Any high-profile article like this is bound to get hit by sleeper vandal accounts. szyslak 03:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama won texas caucus

I was under the impression that Obama won the texas caucus. Not Hillary, as it sais in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.16.108 (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says she won the "primary portion of the Texas primary and caucuses, [293]", which she did. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm relatively sure that's not true. She won the PRIMARY, and Obama won the CAUCUS, she didn't win "the primary portion of the Texas primary and caucuses", as I understand it. Bellwether BC 16:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We're saying the same thing, aren't we? Texas had a same-day primary and caucus to determine its delegates. She won the primary part, Obama won the caucus part. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. The phrasing could lead one to think that Clinton won the primary portion (meaning the main portion, or what have you) of both the Texas "primary and caucuses", whereas Obama won some later, smaller caucus or something. I think it's just a bit difficult in the phrasing is all. Perhaps something like "while Clinton won the Texas primary, Obama took the Texas Caucuses" or something like that. The word "primary" has multiple meanings that can read in a confusing way. Bellwether BC 17:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Try to stay terse, I changed it to "splitting the Texas primary and caucuses". Wasted Time R (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Still trying to stay terse, I've revised it again to say she lost the combined overall thing. That should make everyone happy. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the need for terseness and I'll add what I put to the main article page. But, I still have some concern. Clinton did win the primary and hence the popular vote (or some might claim). Clinton and the media made it seem like she had won Texas for weeks until Obama was declared the winner. In retrospect, it doesn't matter. This is perhaps to much detail and if you think it is, I understand. It should definitely be mentioned in the main campaign article.User:calbear22 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Primary and caucus results are notoriously hard to describe tersely. Many people don't understand why Clinton's 100,000 vote win in the Texas primary, where 2.8 million people voted overall, should count less than Obama's win in the Texas caucuses, where maybe a third as many people participated. And why have these two contests on the same day? Whole thing makes no sense. Best we just describe the end result, she lost overall. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Shirley Chisholm was the first woman to win a primary in 1972

[3] [4] [5] It is clear Chisholm won 2 primaries in '72, but should you dispute this claim, it is best that it be completely ledt out while it is disputed.ILDB (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, all mention of her being the first woman to win a primary has been removed. Shirley Chisholm winning a non-binding beauty contest that the leading candidates weren't entered in, should trump Hillary winning New Hampshire and many other states against a full field. Good work. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that says Chisholm actually won a primary? Unfortunately blogs can't be used as sources on Wikipedia. I've gone through a number of biographies for Chisholm, including one about a biopic shown on PBS and none of them mention her actually winning a primary. She won delegates, yes, but I can't find any reliable sources that say she actually won a primary. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried yet another formulation in the lead: "In the 2008 presidential nomination race, Clinton has won the most primaries and delegates of any woman in U.S. history." Hopefully no one will object to this assertion, which is true by a wide margin. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Don't get discouraged, WTR, you're doing good work here. Bellwether BC 22:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You're on your own here now, WTR. Per mainly things that have been going on at the Obama article, I'm out on editing the high profile political articles, at least for awhile. I'm going to try to get back to what I love about the project: writing articles about subjects I think are cool and notable. Good luck to you! Regards, Bellwether BC 03:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't blame you — from what I've seen, the Obama article has lapsed into total insanity. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

The current election coverage about hillary, including "delegate counts", "Super Tuesday's", "Barack Obama", and "Speculation" , should not be included in this page, and is considered vandalism. thank you. Dwilso talk 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It's kind of hard to talk about a nomination campaign without mentioning primaries, delegates, and the subject's main rival. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

net worth stats: since when?

i was wondering why her net worth is shown, though i noticed other presidents, candidates, even millonaires' pages don't list there financial status when not otherwise important. why so important here? 74.130.113.43 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC) ps wasted time indeed sir74.130.113.43 (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's been removed from the infobox. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Didn't see this topic here. I had made a new one. Here's what I wrote on the subject- "Could we add a bit somewhere about HRC's net worth, as well as in her fact box (is that it's called, exactly?) I'm kind of new here, sorry if I seem n00bish. :P With our three serious remaining presidential candidates, I think their net worths are worthy of inclusion for readers' scrutiny and comparison. McCain's has already been added onto his page. PulpatineFiction (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)"
I think the net worths are important, as I mentioned comparisons and it is something that came up in the 2004 presidential election across news sites and blogs. Why not in 2008? PulpatineFiction (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does trace the evolution of her wealth, from her father's "small but successful business" to "From 1978 until they entered the White House, she had a higher salary than her husband.[69] During 1978 and 1979, while looking to supplement their income," to "She earned less than all the other partners, due to fewer hours being billed,[97] but still made more than $200,000 in her final year there.[86]" to "In April 2007, the Clintons liquidated a blind trust that had been established when Bill became president in 1993, in order to avoid the possibility of ethical conflicts or political embarrassments in the trust as Hillary Clinton undertook her presidential race;[257][258] later disclosure statements revealed that the couple's worth was now upwards of $50 million.[258]". So we do discuss this. The editor above felt that putting the net worth in the infobox was kind of crude and unusual. We'll see what others say. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

2000-2007 tax returns now released: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/returns/ Jayavarman1 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done my taxes yet, so I got no interest in looking at anyone else's ;-) Thanks for posting, though. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Has now been added. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

The section Hillary Rodham Clinton#Cultural and political image is now very informative, well sourced, and devoid of WP:SYN. It is a good example of NPOV writing. Kudos, Wasted Time R!! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Good research, good writing, good information. CouldOughta (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree too - very balanced, very well done. Tvoz |talk 06:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
An entire section written with pro-Clinton research is supposed to be NPOV writing? Carybriel (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Research about the polarized response Clinton brings, for example, is neither pro- nor anti-Clinton, but rather just analytical and descriptive. But from the past Talk comments here, most readers seem to intuitively think that, if anything, it is anti-Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree it's acceptable;It still reads like an essay. But I will abide by consensus but with Carybriel's objection and my own I don't see where there is a consensus yet. Also, what is the rush? Why not give TS01D (and others) more of a chance to respond? And I don't think your edit summary should have called him "an inactive".Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Carybriel's objection is completely different from the previous ones — no one has ever said this section was too pro-HRC; all of the discussions over polarization have been dealing with the opposite concern. That, combined with Carybriel's lifetime of less than ten edits, gives it somewhat lesser weight here. The only other objector is you, although your reasons keep changing over time. A number of other editors, including Loonymonkey, Classicfilms, CouldOughta, Tvoz, Jossi, and myself support the section. Indeed Jossi, an admin with 60,000 edits, gave me a barnstar for it. That is a consensus. I would welcome seeing what TS01D has to say too, but he/she has been mostly inactive lately and legitimate material should not be held hostage to inactive editors. You are now doing what you've tried in the past, trying to bait me into a 3RR violation. Please stop. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't stand Hillary Clinton. The first word that always comes to my mind when I think of her is "bitch" to be honest; however, I have read this section and followed a few of the differing sources and I conclude that it is perfectly fine. Everything is properly sourced, and there appears to be no evidence of bias or cherry-picking (and believe me, I looked very hard for some). My only criticism, and it's a minor criticism, is that it seems overlong. I would not describe it as pro- or anti-Clinton at all - it simply presents the material in a descriptive manner. It appears above that a consensus for removal of the OR tag has been reached, and I see no reason to object. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Let me also point out to onlookers that Mr.grantevans2 is not just trying to put the tag back on this section, but is trying to delete almost all of it, with this edit and this edit in the last 24 hours, something that neither Jossi nor TS01D nor anyone else ever advocated. This follows at least seven prior attempts in the past by Mr.grantevans2 to delete the entire section, again something that no other editor has ever supported. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. I assumed Mr.grantevans2 was nixing the sections he thought violated WP:OR. Just to reiterate, I think the section is fine as it stands, although I think a bit more brevity might be preferable - which is not the same as just chopping bits out willy nilly. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Again for the benefit of onlookers, Mr.grantevans2 has never had a fully consistent objection to this section. He's said it was "non-encylcopedic", "completely superfluous", "pseudo-intellectual magnifying glass type analysis", "I don't think personal labels are generally useful in an encyclopedia BLP unless they are almost universally accepted which 'polarizing' is not", "WP:SYN and editorializing", "the 'polarizing' categorization of the subject of this BLP", "original research", "It still reads like an essay". The polarization and WP:SYN objections were parroted from other editors, who had more specifically-worded, reasonably-stated objections on these grounds, and due to which the section has been reworked twice. He has pledged several times to abide by consensus, but no matter how many editors say the section is now acceptable to them, and now matter how many editors say the section is good and useful, he always comes back trying to get rid of it. He has tried to remove the entire section seven times in the last month, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. He was reverted half the time by me, half the time by various other editors. When he reported me to WP:AN3 for my reversions, the admin said here he was trying to game me into a 3RR violation and took no action. I leave onlookers to draw their own conclusions. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it again, as I see Scjessey's comments as providing a consensus for accepting the section without a tag. I really am puzzled by the attempted divisions of people here into different camps such as "onlookers" "inactive latelys", "lifetime of less than ten edits" or "the one who put up the tag"; this is an encyclopedia written by consensus without any more weight given to the edits or opinions of those who hang around here all the time, for whatever reason, than those who drop by infrequently. That's why we have the No Ownership policy. I also suggest that editors address Scjessey's quite reasonable suggestion that a bit of brevity might improve the section. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

name

can we edit as: "Clinton II (or Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton) (born October 26, 1947) is the junior United States Senator from..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.250.219 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a jokebook. Tvoz |talk 22:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillary header placed in a bunch of articles

Anyone care to explain why the Hillary template is showing up on Monroe piercing, Navel piercing, Triangle piercing, and basically all the piercing articles? dearly (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

More likely than not simple vandalism. Revert it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how. I don't see where it was added in the edit page dearly (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Special:Contributions/172.131.248.146 has been putting it in templates... dearly (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked it for now. Thanks for reverting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

Why, under further reading, is there only a list of Clinton's books, and not a list of books that may offer a different perspective on Clinton? This article does read like a PR piece. Carybriel (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up two different sections in the article. The "Writings and recordings" section just discusses her own works. The "Further reading" section consists of a link to the List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton article, which contains pretty much all the books written about her, including about 25 that are highly negative about her. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism for Exaggerating/Lying

I think this article needs to make mention of the scandal thats going on at the moment regarding Clinton's exaggerating her role and experiences regarding the Northern Ireland peace process and her visit to Bosnia. It's been well covered in most global media outlets (with the odd exception of the BBC for some reason). 78.150.160.240 (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the BBC has a proper sense for proportion ;-). Anyways, this is not Wikinews. If anywhere, this should go into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 unless it becomes a lot larger than it is currently. An we would need concrete sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are some sources http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/25/wuspols225.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/13/whillary113.xml
Seems pretty major to me. Unless politicians being "creative" with the truth is considered par for the course these days. 78.150.160.240 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is Hillary's biography, and should not mention every scandal that occurs during the campaign. Yahel Guhan 16:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The First Lady section of this article has never said anything about her role Bosnia or Northern Ireland, so there's nothing to back off from there. The campaign article already discusses the Bosnian sniper fire business, and adding Northern Ireland is under discussion. Should mention of the Bosnia bit be added to this main article's campaign section? Hard to say. If this is a key episode that undermines her expertise argument and character and becomes the final nail in her campaign, yes. If this is just another of the transient three-day kerfuffles that presidential campaigns are full of to no lasting effect, no. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Right now it (Bosnia tarmack dodging bullets) seems to have somehow become a defining event and is being presented by reliably sourced media as something which has reinforced concerns about ruthless dishonesty (I,btw, have never seen her as being any more or less honest than any other presidential contender over the past 20 years). Anyway, I think it should go in now as it can always be taken out later if its importance level drops: but for right now it looks like a major,major event in her life. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Kevinbertsch (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC) I wonder why there is no mention on Hillary's bald-faced lie that she was named after the first man to climb Mt. Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary. The only problem with this is Sir Edmund climbed Mt. Everest in 1953, six full years after Mrs. Clinton was born. At the time of her birth, Sir Edmund was an unknown New Zealand beekeeper. Bill Clinton repeated this lie in his biography, but despite being so easily checkable, everyone swallows it. While unflattering, I think this demonstrates an important part of both Clinton's characters - a willingness to tell any lie that they think will make them look good, or avoid criticism (cf Monica Lewinsky). If this page is to be fair and not a hagiography, I think this totally correct piece of information should be included.

It is mentioned and properly cited. In fact it is the very first citation! See Hillary Rodham Clinton#Early life and try reading the article first. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the problem with putting this important stuff in the sub-article hinterlands or in the footnotes is that it becomes invisible/inaccessible to most non-insider encyclopedia readers. These falsehoods and misrepresentations have become a more important part of the Clinton legacy and more and more astute consumers of information will be wondering, just as Kevinbertsch does, "why there is no mention on Hillary's bald-faced lie(?)" in the main BLP. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone with a basic level of education (like "astute consumers") will be familiar with the way footnotes work, and we aren't talking about "important stuff" anyway. The whole "Hillary" name thing is just an interesting aside in her life and doesn't warrant any significant coverage or analysis. The Bosnia and NAFTA things are better and more visible examples of Hillary's BS, and they are adequately covered in the campaign article where they belong. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a valid opinion but not the only one. I think those examples of BS,as you put it, would be much more interesting and informative to the general readership than any part of the "Cultural and political image" section.Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK all you Tuzla fans, I've added the Bosnia sniper fire mistaken statements episode to the campaign section. I've seen enough comments by now on its absence to be convinced it's steeped itself into the popular consciousness, and is thus significant to the campaign arc and not just another passing flurry. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WastedTime:) Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be pertinent to cross-reference the Tuzla scandal into the Healthcare section as per Christopher Hitchens' article here: http://www.slate.com/id/2187780/. Abumariah (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hitchens is a known froth-at-the-mouther when it comes to the Clintons. But to the point. Our article has never claimed that Hillary had any role, good or bad, in Clinton administration foreign policy decisions, not Bosnia, not Kosovo, not Rwanda, not Northern Ireland, not anything. Our treatment of her foreign involvement during her First Lady years is limited to one short paragraph, that describes her visiting lots of countries, and her statements re womens' rights in China, Taliban Afghanistan, and the Vital Voices program, all of which are clearly documented. The idea that Hillary kept Bill from intervening in Bosnia sooner is weak and unsupported and ultimately immaterial. Bill was the president; any responsibility for failure to intervene earlier is his and his alone. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The most likely democratic presidential candidate

Please add "she is considered the most likely candidate to win the Democratic nomination for President" HillaryFan (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Insincere comment from obvious sock-troll. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Article length

Please reduce article byte count to closer to 32 kb or lower. There are three sections that can be ditched because they already have subarticles, and a subarticle should be created for each of the following: "Early life and education", "Marriage and family, law career and First Lady of Arkansas", and "First Lady of the United States". I came here from Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton is even longer. About half of the country is on dialup, like me, and it takes over three minutes to load. And save your arguments about "readable prose". Readable prose is a lot less important than "edit byte count". I found "Hillary Clinton" because I was looking up "Wikipedia's longest articles" and this article is on it. Very high up on it. It was at #98 when I checked. Barack Obama was way down at #305 in comparison. Making the page longer does not make it more informative, more helpful, or more impressive. It only serves to make it harder to read. 199.125.109.100 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The era of 32 Kb biographical articles ended with the WP:BLP requirements for sentence-by-sentence citing of everything that's said, especially for a high-profile figure like this. Your suggestion of ditching sections is a violation of WP:SUMMARY form. Her career has been a lot longer than Obama's. And a lot of the most popular websites in the world (YouTube, etc) are now hard to use on dialup. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't YouTube. It's an encyclopedia. By ditch, I mean leave a summary paragraph and move the rest to the subarticle. By splitting the article into six sections each would load quickly and be easy to read. There are many people who would be able to pick out the sections they wanted to read and not have to be forced to wait for the rest to load. You can create a very attractive and appealing article and make it easy to read by splitting it up. 199.125.109.100 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you look in the page count tool you'll see that nobody ever reads the subarticles — it's literally a 100-to-1 ratio compared to the main article. Thus you'll be consigning huge amounts of biographical material to oblivion. And in cases like this article, you'll have incredible edit wars over what manages to stay in the main article — A Republican in college in or out? Rose Law Firm in or out? Travelgate in or out? Reaction to Lewinsky scandal in or out? Vote on Iraq War Resolution in or out? And so forth. It would be a disaster. And computer history has shown that distorting content for tomorrow to meet the apparent technical limitations of today is a bad idea ... look at how long ramifications of the Windows 8.3 filename convention have persisted; just today in Windows XP I ran across a file that was being rendered as TE021F~1.TXT style gobbledegook. The solution to your problem is the Wikipedia-on-CDROM edition that is always just around the corner. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Does that bother me that no one ever clicks on any of the subarticles? Not in the least. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to make the information easily available, not to force people to read it. And no you would not create any warring over what got kept. Keep it all. It's real easy to tell what shouldn't be in the main article. Anything that anyone can't agree on. CDROM is not the solution, unless you planned on mailing out a new copy to a billion people every day for free, although that really isn't even a solution because long articles don't even load quickly from cache. I do think that articles can be a little bit bigger than 32 kB, but 163 kB is absurd. Out of 2 million English language articles, or is it 3 million now, less than 1000 are over 100k,[6] but most of those are text only list of articles, and are not a problem loading because there are no graphics. There are only a small handful of articles like this one that are hard to read because they are over the 100kb limit and it doesn't have to be that way. Fix the article and increase its value. You know my favorite Windows program is a chess program. It has graphics, I think eight levels of difficulty, and can beat average players at about level four, and get this, is only 4 kilobytes. So things don't have to be big to be good. 199.125.109.100 (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not endorsing the view of the anoyn, but the arguement of page hits from parent to child is pretty meaningless (IMO). You make an assumption that people that hit the page actually read the whole thing, which I find highly dubious. Furthermore it would be nearly impossible to have a high ratio of parent to child hit ratio because of the mostly hierarchical nature of articles in general. Arzel (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What you would find with this article, if you trimmed it to say 20 kB, is that no one would be clicking on 6 of the 7 subarticles and everyone would be clicking on the presidential campaign article, which by the way is twice as long as this article (and therefor even more difficult to read, and even more in need of surgery than this article). 199.125.109.100 (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to guess at the article stats, you can see them at http://stats.grok.se/en/. Anyway, I think CDROM is the answer. It would force some kind of stable version mechanism to be in place, so you could read the thing with some kind of confidence that it hadn't been vandalized, trolled, or screwed up. It would come with its own reader program, so it would load and page and link very quickly. People with no connections at all could read it, you could even make dedicated book-like reader devices for it. And I don't care about updating it every day; I write articles to be read ten years from now, not to follow every daily twist and turn. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was taking this IP too seriously. He/she proposed at Talk:John McCain that the entire early life and military career set of material be reduced to one paragraph, and replaced by a discussion of whether he is constitutionally eligible to be president. 'Nuff said. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And in any case, this article's readable prose size is 59Kb, within WP:SIZE's guidelines for an article of this kind, and is readable word count is 9,540, which is also within WP:SIZE's "6,000 to 10,000 words" guideline for maintaining reader interest. The large byte count size of this article is due to its many, many cites. These come with the territory, as just about every single statement in this article has been challenged at one time or another. What is really needed are some improvements to the "cite" template to get parsed more quickly and to not churn out so much HTML. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Size has always referred to edit byte count, not readable prose size. See the discussion there. It was only by error that the text was changed to indicate that it falsely meant readable prose size. Big articles are a huge problem. Keep it small, simple. Make it readable. Split it up into smaller segments. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, 6,000 to 10,000 words is not a guideline for acceptable for maintaining reader interest, it is a guideline that once it reaches that size it is impossible to maintain reader interest for that long an article. In other words keep your articles at most half that size or no one is going to read them. That would give a maximum acceptable size 3,000 words, or at 5 characters per word 15,000 bytes. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Shady Past

Ms. Clinton's claim to fame is her past experience, particularly as first lady during her husband's two terms as president. For this wiki entry to be balanced, Ms. Clinton's challenges, failures and marginal maneuvers should also be posted. Her failure to work in a non-partisan fashion on health care doomed her attempt to pass health care reform during Clinton's first term as president. More troubling is her "folder gate" episode in which she magically produced a missing folder about Foster's death on a table in plainview in the whitehouse. When asked about the folder, Ms. Clinton pulled a "tee-hee"...how did that folder get there? All politicans pull marginal moves, and Ms. Clinton is no exception to this sad rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maine prof (talk • contribs) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Did you read the article? We mention the health care failure in the introduction, and we give it a full, long paragraph in the "Health care and other policy initiatives" section, including the negative ramifications of its failure her popularity and the Democrats in 1994. We also link to the 1993 Clinton health care plan article, which gives even more details on the whole matter. Regarding the missing files (Rose Law Firm billing records, not death-of-Foster files, by the way), we cover this too in the article, in the easy-to-find "Whitewater and other investigations" section, "Independent counsels Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr subpoenaed Clinton's legal billing records;[160] she claimed to be unable to produce these records.[160] The records were found in the First Lady's White House book room after a two-year search, and delivered to investigators in early 1996.[161] The delayed appearance of the records sparked intense interest and another investigation about how they surfaced and where they had been;[161] ..." and so on. Next time, read the article before complaining about it! Wasted Time R (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

1995 Speech in Beijing

Strange there's little mention of this. And yet the KING OBAMA page has about a mile and a half fawning analysis of his Kerry sponsored stump at the DNC 2004. Obama was with powerful friends; even the most amiable of critics say the speech was 'safe' and 'more Republican than Democrat'. Hill's speech OTOH was fierce and challenging and given in China where women are terribly persecuted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.208.165 (talk)

I disagree — we do indeed mention it:
In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in the People's Republic of China itself,[153] declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights"[153] and resisting Chinese pressure to soften her remarks.[151]
True, the Obama article gives more space to his speeches, but he's much younger and with much less of a national career to describe, so they have more space to give. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Something that caught me off guard

The main picture on this article (and the main media etc) use this picture of Ms. Clinton that has to be about 10 years old. The woman has some distinguished wrinkles now... I wish we had a free-use image that wasnt disparaging (the pictures where she looks really really old, but probably just tried), and yet was recent. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture is her official portrait, so it seems to be appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh dont get me wrong, I know its the official one. I just wish she would allow for a more recent one... or that the mainstream media (and us)would take it upon ourselves to pick one thats just more recent. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The standard practice for the top photo is to use the most recent formal official portrait photo. This is that. It's not ten years old, since it's from her senate years, but it might be six or seven. If and when a newer such photo appears, we can use it. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

young girl picture of Hillary

There is a picture of Hillary when she was a young girl, that has been used both by Hillary in some TV spots, and has been used by the media at times. I think it would add to the article to show this picture, could someone add it if they know how? QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In all likelihood, the picture would not qualify under WP fair use restrictions. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Clinton is the $100 million dollar lady

It's all over the news that the Clintons made $1 crore (US$100M). I am for NPOV. So we have to be careful to note that most of the money was made by her husband. Include it in his article? I am KVS. 122.164.121.238 (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Has now been added, to the "Presidential campaign of 2008" section, third paragraph, where a bunch of other recent financial/worth info is already presented. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hillary caught in [what the media characterize as] another stump-speech lie ??

Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton tells : hxxp://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.84.34 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

These campaign stories about real people affected by whatever the candidate thinks is wrong with the world, always turn out to be at least partly wrong when you look at them closer. For the campaign article, if anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As are the initial reports about these stories. This one was more complicated than the first reports - the story was not a lie, and in any case it was told to her as she retold it by a police officer, not something she exaggerated. There's a piece in washpo and other reports about this - it's a case of the media jumping to the conclusion that she was prevaricating and then running with the story - in all of the major news outlets, no less. What's the opposite of teflon? (In any case, I agree not here in the bio, and probably not in the campaign article either.) Tvoz |talk 19:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think making a big thing out of this incident is silly. If Clinton is guilty of anything it is of not doing proper fact checking, and that's not much of a story. It certainly fails WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT as far as this article is concerned, and probably isn't worth a mention on the campaign article either (now that the full facts have emerged). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've yanked it out of the campaign article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's now back in and reworked. And I think the WaPo explanation above is inferior to this Jake Tapper one. See [[Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008#Clinton misspeaks again for more. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Valedictorian

Why is Hillary Clinton being named valedictorian in the article? According to MSNBC that information is false. Here is a link to the article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/page/3/

Red VonMunster (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an error that the article used to have. It was corrected by this edit of 2 March 2007 and hasn't been back in since. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks for clearing that up for me.Red VonMunster (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed for introduction

There is virtually no citations for the introduction of this article. The rest of the article has substantial citations. Given the potential for disagreements and in the spirit of wikipedia through the creation of outstanding article, should more citations be added. Wanted to get input before I start adding citations. Please advise It is me i think (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See the FAQ here. The style of this article is that there are no footnotes in the introduction, because the introduction only summarizes material presented later in the body of the article and cited there. Many FA-level articles are done this way. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_11&oldid=1087169115"