Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Opinion on how things are being handled here

From user: Greenwinged: I suggest you people restore John Bolton, 7F, and others' comments. Trying to censor them only shows you are trying to censor the article. People can make up their own mind if the censored comments are any good or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenwinged (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by sockpuppets of banned users trying to evade their bans are to be stricken from Wikipedia, regardless of their merit.Read the banning policy. Tvoz |talk 03:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Greenwinged is obviously the newest incarnation of Derek. Turtlescrubber 04:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The striking of 7F/MD12752/whatever sock manifestations is fine. I am less comfortable with Turtlescrubber's removal of John J. Bulten's comments. Yes, he obviously has a hang-up about HRC and it shows. Yes, he admitted he was trying to derail the FAC. Yes, even when he has a legitimate point about something in the article, his tone is uncivil-unto-obnoxious. But we've heard out worse than this guy in these talk pages; by its nature, this article isn't always going to attract model WP citizens. Unless it can be show that Bulten is editing in completely bad faith — such as being a sock, and while I agree his lifetime edit history is a bit suspicious for a purportedly new user, I haven't seen any real evidence for sockedness – it seems to me that we can deal with him here. Wasted Time R 11:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think. Worry not, I don't have immediate further designs on this page. I tried to make a condensation-only edit in good faith, which speaks for itself, but not everyone regarded it as condensation-only. I will see y'all after I get through the Ron Paul suggestion list. But as I said, I did come on a shade too strong at the start, and I have apologized. Considering the Biblical careers of Jezebel and Athaliah might illumine your understanding of my discontent. Ciao. John J. Bulten 12:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, your condensation-only edit of the lead section, which people can see at [1], read like a Who's Who entry, trying to cram the most information into the fewest words possible. Or, as Tvoz said, like a telegram. While the article's prose no doubt needs to be tightened in numerous places, this was going too far. It also, as Tvoz said, introduced several errors, including suggesting that HRC was the country's ambassador to the UN and other countries and subsuming the cattles future controversy into the Clinton administration. I agree with Tvoz's backing out of this version of the lead. Wasted Time R 13:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now restored the John J. Bulten comments in question. Wasted Time R 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Paul

Considering his ties with the clintons, including allegedly being defrauded by Hilary, don't you think this article shoudl mention Peter Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Paul) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.74.177 (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Paul's lawsuit against Hillary was thrown out for lack of evidence, and considering that Hillary's finance director was acquitted of charges, no it doesn't merit inclusion here. It is covered in the United States Senate election in New York, 2000 article, however. Wasted Time R 10:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Are you that sure? Or are you just trying to avoid people from questioning her integrity? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw 151.68.11.126 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul's lawsuit is frivolous. Not only did the judge throw out its claims against HRC, the judge made Paul pay for HRC's legal bills. A video on YouTube doesn't change that. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lerner

Why no mention of Michael Lerner and Hillary's adoption of "The Politics of Meaning"?. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good point! I've recently been adding material on the evolution of her political thinking, and I was planning to include this. Will be in shortly ... Wasted Time R 10:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Now done. Wasted Time R 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member, why can't I edit the page?

Does someone have an answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromptonenator (talk • contribs) 08:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cromptonenator, and welcome. It looks like you have a new account, and only accounts at least four days old can edit semi-protected articles. Until then, if you see something that needs changing, you can suggest it here on the talk page. --Bongwarrior 08:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

so true Hillarious Clintonista (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The lead section appears to be way to long, and way to detailed. How about something like this:

That's "too" long and "too" detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1947) is the junior United States Senator from New York, and a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election. She is married to Bill Clinton—the 42nd President of the United States—and was the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001.

A native of Illinois, Hillary Rodham began her career as an influential lawyer after graduating from Yale Law School in 1973; she was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979. She served as the First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992, during which she was active in a number of organizations concerning the welfare of children.

As First Lady of the United States, she took a more prominent position in policy matters than many before her. Her major initiative, the Clinton health care plan, failed to gain approval by the U.S. Congress in 1994, but she helped establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program and other legislation, notably the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. During her tenure, Clinton's travels were extensive; she holds the record as being the most travled First Lady. She later became the first First Lady to be subpoenaed, testifying before a Federal grand jury as a consequence of the Whitewater scandal in 1996. She was never charged with any wrongdoing in this or several other investigations during the Clinton administration. The state of her marriage to Bill Clinton was the subject of considerable public discussion following the Lewinsky scandal in 1998.

Moving to New York, Clinton was elected to the United States Senate in 2000, the first time a First Lady was elected to public office and the first female Senator from that state. There she initially supported the George W. Bush administration on some foreign policy issues, which included voting for the Iraq War Resolution, but now opposes the administration on the Iraq War and most domestic issues. Nevertheless, she was re-elected by a wide margin in 2006. Long described as a polarizing figure in American politics, during 2007 she has consistently been the front-runner in polls for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President."

This is more concise, yet still provides a very thorough overview of the article. She probably was an influential lawyer, but that can be summed up without going into detail about her being one out of 100 (put that in the lawyer section). Plus, the "almost any before her" was POV and needs a cite; "many" works just fine. Ambassador abroad? Talk about pickling words! She traveled more than any other FL which definitely should be said (here's a cite: http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=38 - you have to scroll down a bit), but characterizing her as an "ambassador abroad" is just POV. Best, Happyme22 02:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Happyme, thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, everyone has conflicting opinions about what should be in the lead, how much detail vs. generality it should have, whether it should have cites or merely summarize cited material in the article body, and so forth. During FAC I got comments that it was too vague and the User:BQZip01/FA Tips guidelines say to keep cites out of the lead (which I agree with). Furthermore, I hadn't yet gotten around to backing out some unwarranted additions that K157 had made to it. Anyway, I've now pulled some stuff and I've put your broke-travelled-record cite into the body of the article (can't be sure she still holds the record though, maybe Laura Bush has travelled more). Wasted Time R 17:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand; just wanted to help with the article. Thanks for listening. Best, Happyme22 01:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is editing ?

According to an article I read, Wikipedia is a very important web site among those giving information about our society etc, among the most visited. And I read that for Wikipedia articles where some organisations are very interested in what is written on major news and info sites, professional PR people might be editing. It is well known that the most important way of doing PR for something is making press and media write positive articles. Wikipedia is a kind of media where the readers edit themselves.
So, how many people that are professional PR people or at least getting paid for it are editing articles about the president candidates ? [13:25, 18 October 2007 BIL]

It's impossible to know for sure, but I don't think much editing is being done by PR people. You have to be pretty familiar with WP rules and customs to be successful on these kinds of high-profile articles; crude beginner attempts to delete or spin unfavorable material or to insert fluff usually won't stay in for long. And the content discussions and edit wars that do happen on these kinds of articles have the same "feel" as on all other kinds of WP articles, indicating it's regular WP editors who are involved. But I could be wrong; on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Wasted Time R 13:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

But to be really honest, I think he has a bit of point there. The article reads so smooth, hardly any edges appear, and its very (too) long too... :( Reads like an idealized "description" to me (but then again this is just my impression, I may be wrong) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The person most responsible for the current state of the article — for good or for bad — is me, and I guarantee you that I'm not associated with the Clinton campaign or any other campaign, I'm not a PR person professional or otherwise and never have been, I don't work in the media or any related field and never have, and not only am I not getting paid for this, I have "spent" (euphemism for "squandered") many countless otherwise potentially useful or valuable hours on it. But thanks for your glowing assessment nonetheless. Wasted Time R 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

After all the polishing that's gone on, it's good to know that "hardly any edges" appear to a new reader. Good work, Wasted. (As for dogs on the net, woof.) Tvoz |talk 05:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you, WastedTime, but isn't that what any intelligent PR person would write here? A little pointless to write that "guarantee"? 153.1.30.135 (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

infoboxes

Consensus was reached (see Talk archives) to not have infobox entries for LSC, CDF, or anything other than Senator/First Lady US; the bottom boxes also would not inlude all of the legal posts, but would also include the FL of Arkansas. Having the others bogs down the page, making it harder to find the really notable material. There is ample mention of these posts in the text - they should not be re-added to the boxes unless a new consensus is reached here. I removed them to conform to the discussions that took place here. Tvoz |talk 01:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe a new conversation should be started in regards to the infoboxes. Donna Shalala and other CDF and LSC Chairs have info- and succession boxes that are quite similar. The LSC - a role in presidential admins. - seems quite prominent as does the national CDF. These are imporant legal - and in the LSC's case, quite political - offices and are usually broght up in writings about Mrs. Clinton.ILDB 03:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Only because the editor(s) campaigning for these infoboxes and succession boxes put them there! Indeed, such editor(s) have created stubby bio articles for LSC and CDF heads, just for the purpose of having blue links in these boxes. I don't quite understand the compulsion in this regard ... no one is denying that LSC and CDF are important, and the HRC article gives them their weight. That doesn't mean they are box-worthy. Wasted Time R 03:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved it out of Donna Shalala's infobox into the text where it has appropriate weight. As for Hillary, I don't understand the compulsion either, but feel strongly that simplicity and streamlined is the way to go here for infobox and the bottom boxes (what are they called?). Infobox entries should be limited to the most significant positions an individual has held - in this case, clearly Senator and FL of the US. LSC and CDF are given their proper weight in the article. Tvoz |talk 05:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we can find a compromise that both sides can agree on. I propose LSC Chairwomanship in the infobox, but not board member. Board member and CDF Chair can go in legal offices in succession box. It is an important office, and only Senator and First Lady of Arkansas and U.S. is in the succession boxes. I believe that has much more to do with her husband's carrer. Those other offices are very prominent and deserve space in the succession boxes.K157 02:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, again - we went over this a while back, and this is not a matter of compromise. Neither LSC nor CDF should be in the infoboxes or the succession boxes. Her political career is defined by First Lady and Senator now - at this stage those other posts recede in importance, and it's not clear they ever would have been "infobox-worthy". They are covered in the text appropriately and should not be in the infoboxes or succession boxes. It is too hard to find the really important information when minor positions are included. And I don't think we need to worry about her career being eclipsed by her husband's. Tvoz |talk 03:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If Ark FL deserves two boxes, then LSC and CDF definetly do, if only succession boxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.62.78 (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Both deserve space at the bottom boxes. LSC definetly merits an infobox at the top, at least the chairwomanship. Perhaps also Legal Counsel to U.S. HoR J C; it's often listed with sen. FL and LSC as a political office. Sometimes only w/ FL and Senator; Mdmp888 02:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is adequately covered in the article's text. Tvoz |talk 02:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this consensus? ILDB 13:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this merits inclusion in WP:LAME for "Lamest thing socks were created for ever!" Wasted Time R 13:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is consensus - it is agreed that we should include infoboxes and succession boxes for LSC Char and CDF Chair; by the way, if Lynne Cheney is important enough to get an infobox for 6th Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.62.78 (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus for these additions - what is agreed is that this material does not belong in infoboxes or succession boxes, and it is also agreed that sockpuppetry to support oneself is a blockable offense. Tvoz |talk 09:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can't these be included?

Assignments

Committee on Budget (2001-2003)^[1]
Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001-present)^[1]
Subcommittee Assignments: Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety | Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water | Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions(2001-present)^[1]
Subcommittee Assignments: Aging | Children and Families
Committee on Armed Services (2003-present)^[2]
Subcommittee Assignments: Airland | Emerging Threats and Capabilities | Readiness and Management Support
Special Committee on Aging.^[3]
Chairman of Steering and Outreach Committee (2003-2007)
Vice Chairman of Committee Outreach (2007-present)^[3]
Chairwoman of the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health (2007-present)

I thought the purpose of Wiki was to provide accurate and thorough information?

If you want citations, just say so, they are readily available. My goal here to provide the most accurate account of Senator Clinton's career, not just selectively choose what I should or should not put in the article. [01:31, 23 October 2007 MasterRegal]

The issue was one of space. However, I am in the process of splitting out the Senate section into a separate article, and I am including your additionsa above into the new article. Wasted Time R 02:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Democratic caucus committees need to be separated from the Senate committees if they're to be included - it's really apples and oranges. Tvoz |talk 03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Now present in Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton#Assignments. Wasted Time R 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

inclusion of campaign logos

from the text i submitted when requesting temporary unprotection of Fred Thompson:

having reviewed the articles for the 2008 presidential candidates, i realized that the majority of the articles did not have campaign logos inserted in them. a minority of articles do have them. a campaign logo/poster/image, by definition, is intended to promote the candidate. promotion implies POV. the inclusion of these images is inherently POV. i've removed these images from a handful of articles, and would like to have the image removed from this article - in that way, all candidate articles will be represented equally, in service to NPOV.

with the re-inclusion of clinton's campaign logo, hers is now the only presidential candidate biography that has such a logo. i assert that either all candidate bio's have such logos, or none. the latter is better, per the justification above. Anastrophe 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Using the campaign logo is simply using an image associated with the campaign and candidate. It helps illustrate the article, and these articles are often in need of such illustrations. Yes, the logo is intended to promote the candidate, but so what? We put corporate logos on articles about corporations and we put albums covers on articles about music albums and we put movie posters on articles about films, and they're all designed to promote as well. The promotion involved is innocuous and does not constitute the article endorsing the campaign; it's merely using the image to describe the campaign. In some cases the logos are informative, such as this one just using one word "Hillary", which commentators have noted; you get to see what the candidates are trying to stress. As for your argument that not all candidate articles have the logo in them, a better solution is to add the logo for those that don't! Not all corporation articles have logos ... if Coca-Cola had one and Pepsi-Cola didn't, that wouldn't be an argument for deleting the former. Wasted Time R 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

noted, and these are good points. however - for one thing, not all candidates even have logos (mostly the minor party candidates). as well, i'd submit that later in the campaigns, as the candidates winnow down to just a few, we're likely to have more pointed illustrations in the heat of the campaigns - "vote for Hillary, she won't destroy the country like Giuliani" (pure speculation on my part obviously). that would be 'just an illustration' from the campaign. but it wouldn't be appropriate for inclusion, unless it were notable above and beyond the mudslinging that inevitably ensues in such campaigns. re your comment on my talk page on seeking consensus, i appreciate that, but this also falls into the WP:BOLD realm, and has started such discussion, which is a fine way for things to evolve, in my opinion. i'm not going to do any more reversions of images. i see your point, though i still lean towards exclusion of the images rather than inclusion - if only on the previous consideration that at the time i edited the articles, only eight of eighteen major party candidates had logos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastrophe. (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The logo in question is historical - it was used for her 2006 senate reelection campaign, and has nothing to do with her current bid for president. --Stephan Schulz 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

'nothing to do with' is a bit of an overstatement. her presidential campaign poster differs only in the inclusion of "for president". the logo otherwise is identical. Anastrophe 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't familiar with American politics, campaign logos remain positive, even if the campaign gets into mudslinging, negative ads, etc. Furthermore, your argument that all the candidate articles have to "be the same" with respect to this or any other criteria doesn't really work. This being Wikipedia, the candidate articles are all different: some are well-written, some are a mess, some are much longer than others, some are FA or GA and most are not, some have broken out 'Political positions' articles and some do not, and so forth. If your boldness extends to removing all aspects of articles which are not present in all the others, your lowest-common-denominator result at the end is going to be pretty threadbare. Wasted Time R 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

i am familiar with american politics, having voted in every presidential election since 1980. yes, the articles all differ in quality, that's not at issue, nor is making all articles match the lowest common denominator a fair summary of what i did or plan to do (and is an unfair characterization, IMO). campaign posters and logos are created for what purpose? to promote the candidate. they are not synonymous with company logos - when a new company is being formed, do they generate a logo, then once they're established, eliminate it? the logo's purpose is the get the candidate's name into people's consciousness, and by the very common practice of saturation presentation of these logos (plastered everywhere), it's explicit that the point is to promote the candidate. if every article had a logo, and all were the same size, and in the same position in the article, then it would be approaching NPOV. what initially started this for me was seeing the logo on the mitt romney page increased in size - and finding an assortment of sizes on other pages. in the mitt romney article, it was clearly pushing POV, as at one point the entire presidential campaign portion and logo were moved by an editor to the top of the page. Anastrophe 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding who you are, your user page said you are a professor in Belgium ... then it says you are somebody else ... I dunno what it says. But your description "get the [entity]'s name into people's consciousness, and by the very common practice of saturation presentation of these logos (plastered everywhere), it's explicit that the point is to promote the [entity]" is exactly what corporate logos do - look again at Coca-Cola or NBC or Allstate - we've all seen these images zillions of times. Same purpose, yet we include them in those articles. And if the articles can't show the logos, are they also forbidden from quoting campaign slogans and speeches? Your understanding of NPOV in this context is faulty; User:Morphh below has it right. Wasted Time R 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

sigh. i understand your point re corporate logos; but the argument doesn't map 1:1. my concern is editors attempting to subtly push their candidate through inclusion of what is essentially a form of 'swag' - shall we have images of 'hillary for president' lapel pins, bumper stickers, screen savers, etc etc? they all are also just 'illustrations'. more candidate articles do not have logos included than do have logos included. if all articles have logos, all logos are precisely the same size, and in the same part of the article, then it's appropriate, and not pushing a POV. i still maintain it's better to not have them than to have them - the logos add no information to the article that is of any particular value. my understanding of NPOV is not faulty; other editors have demonstrably pushed POV by such actions as making the logo enormous. i'm trying to err on the side of avoiding such temptations to push POV. as i've stated, i'm not going to involve myself in actually removing or restoring logos. the discussion has been valuable in my opinion. hopefully either all articles or none of the articles will have logos, eventually. Anastrophe 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My post from Huckabee's article - Images don't have to be "neutral". If they illustrate the content of the topic under discussion, that is sufficient for inclusion. I'm sure many articles would like to pull pictures because they present the topic in a positive or negative light, but the purpose of the image is to illustrate the content. The content is what falls under NPOV policy and even then the NPOV rule simply does not prohibit the use of biased sources, biased images, or biased material, as odd as that may sound. The NPOV rule instead means that Wikipedia itself does not take a position within the article that "this source is correct" or "that source is wrong". NPOV relates to how the material is presented. Your removal of the image is inappropriate and uniformity across candidates is not a justification for such a removal. Each article grows at its own pace and there is no rule on uniformity for you to assert such. Morphh ^(talk) 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Morph and Wasted on this - the inclusion of campaign logos is appropriate, regardless of which other articles have them. There is an assumption here that is false: that the articles are here to promote the candidacies. For example, I actively edit articles on at least six individuals who are running for President - and occasionally edit at least another 6 or 7 - plus the associated sub articles, spouse articles, parents' articles, etc.: not as a supporter, but as an editor. As Wasted said, the articles vary greatly. I think it would be great if they all were up there at GA or FA quality, but that takes an enormous amount of focused work and not all of them receive that amount or quality of attention. We shouldn't remove material from one because another one doesn't have something similar - we will end up with a lot of poor articles rather than a few brilliant, many average, and a few mediocre. I think anyone editing these articles responsibly wants to raise the level of the mediocre ones, regardless of who the subject is, and that's a good place to focus some attention - but not by removing elements of the good ones because the poor ones don't have them. Also, I wouldn't worry too much about supporters making logos too large in any article - from what I've experienced, that wouldn't last too long, because of all of the eyes watching. Tvoz |talk 03:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

the discussion on the huckabee article however has dovetailed with fair-use, and lack of same for the logos. you may wish to read that discussion as well. i will add that i'm not sure who you believe is assuming that articles are here to promote the candidates. i never said as much, and i don't think any other editor has either. what we have suggested is that articles are fodder for supporters to attempt to promote the candidate, however subtly or ham-handedly. Anastrophe 03:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Huckabee, thanks. Sorry, I misunderstood you when you said "my concern is editors attempting to subtly push their candidate". The only point I wanted to make about that is that I don't look at these as articles about "candidates". I look at them as biographies of individuals - their whole lives and careers - whose presidential campaigns are only one aspect. So I don't view the inclusion of these logos as partisan - I support their inclusion on Thompson and CLinton, and any others where the editors want them. Tvoz |talk 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

i share the same view of the articles myself. i'm not partisan for any of the candidates, major or minor - i've seen enough presidential elections in my lifetime to know that the 80/20 rule applies: 80% of what the candidates say during the campaign is, for lack of a better term, crap. so i ignore the campaigns almost entirely, almost until the end, being rather more interested in their record on policy before they were seeking new office. but, that's a metadiscussion for another time. i see the use of logos as just opening the door for partisan abuse. all the logos are trivially easy to see by simply visiting the candidate's websites, if one so desires. they add nothing of particular informational value to the article. Anastrophe 06:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we haven't had that particular problem here - we have lots of people watching the article, and reverting when needed. So - Anastrophe, you said that you are not going to get involved in removing or restoring logos any more, just want to discuss it - that's always welcome. The 2006 Senate race logo that was on this page, it seems to me, really doesn't even have much relevance to this conversation (although admittedly it doesn't say "Senate" on it) - it was from the Senate campaign site, available for download. No one has raised any fair use problems with it. ThuranX came over from Huckabee where there are indeed some big problems going on (about POV editing) and removed it from here without discussion, despite the edit summaries that preceded his/her edit - I object to that. Whatever the real issues that are going on over there, and there are some big ones, don't seem to be relevant here, and this logo has nothing to do with it. In fact this article has been in FAC discussions for the last few weeks and no one there had any problem with that logo, and that is a pretty thorough bunch who were going over every pixel, comma, and space. So I reinstated the logo where we had it - the sense here seems to be that it is ok. But of course we can continue discussion. Tvoz |talk 06:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NPC Sorority

Didn't she belong into a sorority in college? If so, I think it is notable in mentioning it in the article. Miranda 06:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't belong to one, as far as I know. Wasted Time R 11:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think she was, because she was offered honorary membership into Alpha Kappa Alpha, but declined due to an unknown reason. There is a rule that members of NPC sororities can't apply to NPHC sororities. Maybe it's in her biography? Miranda 00:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have Living History out of the library right now, so I can't check, but you're welcome to do so ... it doesn't seem like something she would have done. Wasted Time R 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

TooLong Quite long

I think the article is a little bit too long. I understand that you want to provide a lot of information, but its a bit hard to read... maybe different sections can be pulled out into standalone articles? [23:18, 29 October 2007 80.108.103.172]

We already have at least eight standalone articles out of this one, as you can see by searching for occurrences of "Main article:" in the text. But I take your comment seriously, it reflects some of the FAC comments as well. Wasted Time R 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Propose to add a new section titled 'Controversies'

There have been several controversies surrounding Hillary Clinton. For ex: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUtFgO8foY5-Gy8CFMqcRyGxtxJQD8SJ7AV00

There are more controversies, which are important to mention, in the interest of NPOV.

Please respond if you see a reason not to add the controversies section. TwakTwik 03:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length and tried several ways: the consensus reached (see the archives) was that we do not want a separate controversies section or article - it was agreed that reliably sourced controversies should be integrated into the text and notes of the main article where appropriate and in separate daughter articles where appropriate. This has been done, and many, many controversies both big and small are included and well-integrated in the set of articles. Tvoz |talk 04:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Like she said. Regarding your particular issue, the Peter Paul/Hollywood fundraiser/Paul v. Clinton business is discussed in several places: United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2000#Hollywood_fundraiser (which now includes the AP article you cite), Gala Hollywood Farewell Salute to President Clinton, Paul v. Clinton, and if you want background on the figure at the center of this affair, Peter F. Paul. Wasted Time R 11:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Controversy" and/or "Criticism" sections are almost always ill-advised and usually become troll-magnets. Hillary Clinton has a long deep public history, and having a "controversy" section is just going to be an invitation for Clinton-bashing trolls to insert absolutely every alledged (and substantiated) controversy and criticism of her. And while I agree that there is a lot to criticize about her, and she has been involved in her share controversis, for this encyclopedia entry, we can and should mention only the most relevant of these. Detailing every single controversy, criticism, and praise of her would make a great book, but a bad encyclopedia entry. Yilloslime (t) 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Its very interesting that the leading Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani gets a long Controversies section, but the leading Democratic candidate is protected from controversies by Wikipedia . I see it as POV. TwakTwik 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Huckabee gets a nice long controversy section too. "Funny" how Hillary gets her's whitewatered ... er ... whitewashed here. --24.6.29.122 08:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mactographer, the solution for this is to dismantle the Huckabee controversies section. In fact, looking at it, it's a really bad one: the two biggest subsections, 'Fiscal record' and 'Illegal immigration', don't belong even if you believe in controversies sections — they are policy disagreements! By definition, virtually everything a politician does is opposed by somebody, that doesn't make it a 'controversy' in this sense. Ugh. You've proved our point — controversies sections tend to be awful, and no one should have them. Wasted Time R 12:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just sayin'... if Wikipedia wants to TRULY be NPOV, they have to practice it with all the presidential candidates. They should even bend over backwards to do it. But since it's edited by every Tom, Dick and Schmoe (myself included) it's probably impossible. --Mactographer 07:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no "they" in this case. There is no guidance from on high (User:Jimbo or anyone else) on what presidential candidates' articles should look like. All that you see now — the "XYZ presidential campaign" subarticles, the "Political positions of XYZ" subarticles, the "Controversies" sections or subarticles or lack thereof — was cooked up by individual editors working on individual candidates' articles, and copied to one degree or another by other individual editors working on other individual candidates' articles. There's little consistency across the "XYZ presidential campaign" articles, for example — Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 and Mike Gravel presidential campaign, 2008 go into great detail about each debate appearance and media appearance of those candidates, while John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and John Edwards presidential campaign, 2008 have almost nothing in that area. And so on. So if you are waiting until "they" dismantle and disburse the Mike Huckabee controversies section, you'll have a long wait; you should do it yourself. Wasted Time R 12:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's bad that they are handled differently. I would support the dismantling of the Giuliani controversies section and daughter article to integrate the appropriate contents into the mainline of the articles, as was done here. But you are wrong to say that Hillary is "protected from controversies by Wikipedia": they are all here, from senior thesis to cattle futures to Whitewater to Travelgate to Suha Arafat to Norman Hsu and many more, it's just that they are just in the Hillary articles in their appropriate chronological and subject matter place. It's just like you were reading a regular biographical book on her. Wasted Time R 21:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about changing majority of biographies, since Controversies seem to be the norm- for ex: check out George W. Bush's page. I think we just need to add a Controversies section to Hillary Clinton's page to make the article NPOV. I would like to add a POV tag to the entire article for now. TwakTwik 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Giuliani or Bush page, and I agree that we should strive for consistency, but I think the solution here is to improve the Giuliani and Bush pages by incorporating the controversy sections, rather than "worsening" this article by creating a controversy section. I also think a POV tag is ill advised at this stage of the game. Where is the POV you see? What's not being covered in the article that should be, or what's given undue weight? Let's discuss first, tag later. Yilloslime (t) 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

TwakTwik, controversies sections are not the norm for high-quality articles. Look at Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Wesley Clark, and Barack Obama, all of which have achieved Featured Article status. Or for older subjects, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Theodore Roosevelt, again all FA. Look at Nancy Reagan, which is currently being considered for FA, or Ron Paul, which was recently up for FA and fell short due to other reasons. None of these articles have controversies sections! Indeed, I don't know of any FA article that does have one; I don't think it would pass muster. Wasted Time R 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Bill Clinton, Al Gore. May be the discussion should be about Wikipedia standards - how do we get an opinion on standard?.

Its POV right now, because the controversies are hidden inside longer text for Hillary and seem to protect her image better than other current figures such as Rudy Giuliani.

Given Wikipedia's reputation, many voters will refer to it to read up on candidates, and we should be extra careful to ensure that all current presidential candidates are projected in an NPOV way.

I will not add POV tag yet, but if any other editor also views this as a problem, we should apply POV tag.

TwakTwik 00:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the solution is to bring the other articles up to higher standards, not to drag this one down to their level. And slapping a POV-tag onto this article b/c it lacks a controversies section would be an improper use of that tag. Yilloslime (t) 00:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And quite pointy... There is nothing POV about integrating the controversies related to an article's subject into the existing prose of the article... Matter of fact it is more NPOV as it does not give undue weight to either the positive or negative aspects of the subject. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? There is such an obvious bias and agenda schema between the numerous political entries. It is rather embarrassing to read. Please reconsider the standards policies. I have a general policy mandated to my graduate students - which is - to refrain from using Wikipedia references in the bibliography section of their papers - largely because of the inconsistencies. I've just edited some nonsense (jibberish; non-political) from the John Bolton site. We need to stop placing politicians (all persuasions) on pedestals ... the OxfordDen ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxfordden (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your policy towards your graduate students is correct: Wikipedia articles are not appropriate as references for academic or scholarly work. But I would be interested in your pointing us to some real scholarly works that have chapters named "Controversies" that are collecting grounds for all negative material or allegations about historical or political figures. Most scholarly works I'm familiar with integration such material into mainline narrative text, just as we do here. Wasted Time R 12:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's worth noting that the Controversies of Rudy Giuliani article ~~is currently being~~ has been dismantled, which will alleviate the complaints of User:TwakTwik and others that the existence of controversies articles is aligned along party lines. Wasted Time R 12:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Wasted Time R 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to dismantle aticles, such as the Controversies of Rudy Giuliani. To the contrary, one should create article Controversies of Hillary Rodham Clinton or even Citicism of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Let's keep readers informed. That is the purpose of WP.Biophys 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:Five Pillars does not establish an unfettered goal of "keeping readers informed." Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Just wondering, why isn't this article located at Hillary Clinton. Official naming conventions are (WP:NC) to use the most common name, unless it conflicts with something else. Now maybe it's just me, but I don't think I've ever heard any news source refer to Clinton as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (just as "Hillary Clinton"). So why the long name? Hillary Clinton doesn't conflict with anything else. Just to demonstrate, Google shows 7,310,000 hits for "Hillary Clinton", while showing only 1,640,000 for "Hillary Rodham Clinton". - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_5#Requested_move. And you're wrong about news sources, The New York Times always uses the full name in its first reference to her, see today's story for instance, as well as its profile page on her. Wasted Time R 15:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not wrong. I said "I've never seen it". Which I hadn't until now ;) - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 13:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ghostwriting

Should there not be an entry about the controversial authorship of 'It Takes a Village' and other books - which were not written by Mrs. Clinton? ... Oxfordden 03:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is incorporated in detail in the appropriate subarticles: Living History and It Takes a Village. Tvoz |talk 08:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Middle name

I am sure this has been discussed, but why is Hillary's middle name used in the name of the article? Most other politicians seems just to have their first and last. KnightLago 13:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed many times, and several times right above this! Sigh. And it's not her middle name, it's her unmarried name. Wasted Time R 13:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I need more sleep, I completely missed that. Thanks for the explanation. KnightLago 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"A new kind of first lady"?

Not really neutral POV. rich 23:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If the section establishes that she was the first FL to hold a post-graduate degree, the first to have her own professional career up until entering the White House, the first to have an office in the West Wing, and the first to hold a formal policy portfolio, then why is this section title not accurate and neutral? It doesn't mean she was a good FL, or a bad FL, just that she had several characteristics that no previous FL had had. Wasted Time R 00:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"An uncharacteristic First Lady" might be better. "new kind" is actually inaccurate - she was a female and wife of the president, so clearly she was not a "new kind" of first lady. "Differences with past First Ladies" would be even more accurate. Anastrophe 01:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"An uncharacteristic First Lady" it is. Wasted Time R 01:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

new direction in 2nd term

During her 2nd term, unlike the 1st, she is being accused of flip-flopping a lot. So I have tried to use the most neutral language and the most reliable left or center news sources to document it. That's really the fairest thing to do rather than paint a glowing picture of the senator. Truth is better than untruth. It doesn't have to slam her.Jessica Bell 01:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Campaign to-and-fro belongs in Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, probably under the "Campaign developments" section. And the drivers-licenses-for-illegals business is already covered in there, under the "Poor debate performance" subsection. Be aware that "flip flop" charges in recent political campaigns are dime-a-dozen; only the ones that seem to cause real damage to a campaign need be mentioned. Objective accounts of HRC's varying views on an issue may be covered in the appropriate section of Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This one seems notable. The sources are reliable. The person (Tvoz) who got rid of it did not make any attempt to explain why he got rid of it, not a good excuse nor a lame excuse. Jessica Bell 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree Tvoz should have given a better explanation; maybe she was in a hurry. But I've given you an explanation above. The main article is focused on Hillary's life as a whole, and not much on the 2008 campaign. That is covered much more in a separate article. In particular, recent charges of inconsistency are dealt with in Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008#Poor_debate_performance_in_Philadelphia. Wasted Time R 18:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To be further clear, the inconsistencies you raised don't have anything to do with her being a senator, first term or second. They have to do with her possibly being a president (Iran and torture), and have to do with a "what do you think of" debate question (NY state drivers licenses for illegals, which as a federal figure she has nothing to do with). That's why they don't belong where you put them, or in the way that you framed them. Wasted Time R 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

She said these things while she was a senator. So it's senate related. Also you are listed as a person who is guarding the article about sources. All the sources listed are solid. If you don't like the sources, please say so. If you don't like neutrally phrased semi-negative information, then look at Wikipedia's rules about editing. Thank you. Jessica Bell 18:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quibbling about the sources, nor am I objecting to negative material — I wrote the whole section in the campaign article about her lousy debate performance and its consequences. I'm saying you are not aware of the structure of the HRC articles. Her positions on Iran and torture belong in Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, included pointing out any contradictions. That's what that article is there for! The Senate sections in the main article, and in Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, are for votes she casts, committees she belongs to, stuff like that. The drivers license issue belongs, and is already covered, in Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008#Poor_debate_performance_in_Philadelphia. You need to look around all the HRC articles and see where any new piece of material is most appropriate. Wasted Time R 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I was in a hurry and should have spelled out what the problems were. At least one of the sources was blank when I looked at it and another was a transcript of the debate, not a third-party analysis of it which is what I meant by OR. I didn't look at the rest because it was clear that the whole section was misplaced and wrong for this article. Tvoz |talk 22:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And, as I suspected when I saw the edit and comments, this is yet another sockpuppet of Dereks1x, now indefinitely blocked in evasion of his ban. Striking his comments now. Tvoz |talk 04:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And just as an FYI to those that are not familiar with Dereks1x, expect two or three more socks to appear in the coming days. That isn't to say anyone that appears wanting to add negative information to the article is a sock, but just expect more socks. If anyone is interested in finding out how to identify Dereks1x socks, take a look through his checkuser requests. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There's always a first time...Tvoz |talk 05:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

statistics in "political positions' section

I think we're reaching diminishing returns with these statistics - perhaps it should be converted to a prose sentence or two with a footnote that has the numbers, or move it out of here altogether. But I think the section as it now is is losing comprehension. Tvoz |talk 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I aggregated the Almanac numbers into averages across the four years, and moved the yearly numbers into a footnote. (Had previously done the same for some of the interest group rankings.) I don't believe this section should be prose, it's much easier to parse like this. And I like the section in general: it takes a different angle to the subject than its daughter article does, giving extra interest and variety to the reader. Wasted Time R 02:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I like the aggregation - much improved. I agree with you about not turning the whole section into prose - I just was having some trouble with reading the statistics, so I added some words in there: see what you think. If I inadvertently changed the meaning, or you think it's too many words, I'm not insisting on my edit, but I do find it less cryptic this way, even though it's a little repetitive. My eyes glaze over when a run of numbers are presented, but maybe that's just me. Tvoz |talk 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your changes definitely improved it, thanks. Wasted Time R 11:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing info

The policy section of the FL sec. is shockingly short. It neglects to mention her chairing of the Foster Care reform (Foster Care Independence Act of 1997) or any of her foreign policy (i.e. South Asia tour). Perhaps a new page is needed such as the one showing her senate career.ILDB (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, create a new page. But the main article is already too long and cannot bear the additional weight of documenting her "foreign policy". Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hillary not an usual spelling

Wikipedia itself lists 10 women other than Hillary Clinton with that first name, but only two figures with the name "Hilary," both saints. The US Census Bureau lists Hillary as the #788 most popular female name in America and Hilary as the #733. That is not a significant difference, and I don't think makes Hillary THAT unusual of a name. Hillary as a last name is #23755 and Hilary does not show up in their records. You can explore yourself here: http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/namesearch.html. We don't have room here for for Hillary's "foreign policy" but there's room to note an unusual spelling that's not really all that unusual? Apartcents (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We have two sources that say that "Hillary" was an unusual spelling for a girl in 1947, when she was named. Your Census Bureau stats don't directly contradict that; naming practices change pretty rapidly in America. As for Hillary's "foreign policy" when she was First Lady, I'm still skeptical that there was one or what its significance was, but am willing to be convinced otherwise by appropriate citings. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. It could have been vastly different in the 40s. There are still three contemporaries of her with the spelling: Hillary Carlip, Hillary Smith, Hillary Waugh, and none with Hilary. Nonetheless, I suppose its not all that important. If I come across 1940s census data I'll be sure to let you guys know. As for the foreign policy stuff, its not a big deal for me, but if I come across something that would indicate there was something serious about her foreign policy as First Lady or Senator I'll let you guys know too. I wonder if Obama and Edwards pages have foreign policy sections. Something to look into. Thx! Apartcents (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As senator, sure. Such sections are usually in daughter articles: see Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Foreign_policy, Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Foreign_policy, and Political_positions_of_John_Edwards#Foreign_Policy. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep I actually finished checking those out before, thanks for the links. I thought about the names some more, 1947 is the front-end of the baby boomer generation, and people born in her generation make up a vast majority of the U.S. population? I think the Census Bureau data (which is from 1990, which in this case makes it more relevant) would trump the New York Times and Snopes. What do you think? Apartcents (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Where's the balance?

The GWB article is nothing but a long list of negative unsourced BLP violations, why is it that this page paints hillary as a saint like figure like the kind propigated by the media?--—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 22:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering: have you actually read the article? Whitewater, senior thesis, her clothes and appearance, talking to Eleanor Roosevelt, Travelgate, cattle futures, failed healthcare, being an enabler to her husband's infidelity, poor debate performance, Norman Hsu, polarizing, unfavorables - and I didn't even look at the footnotes or the subarticles, and am sure I didn't get them all in any case. Saint-like? I don't think so. If you are unhappy with the George Bush article, discuss it on its talk page. This article is sourced and balanced. Tvoz |talk 00:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and Hillary's negatives are all buried in the body of the article. Purposely made so you have to hunt for them. GWB has his put in a tidy little category with sub-categories AND poll graphics. Same goes for Huckabee and Tancredo and used to be the case for Giuliani, McCain, and most of the others. ~~Could it be some of the Clinton sock puppet staffers are keeping busy over here too?~~ --Mactographer (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to hit the digital player that contains the standard answer to this response. A criticism section is an indication of a poorly written article and the articles in which such a section exists should have a discussion started to integrate those sections into the other sections of that article. There is absolutely no reason why a criticism should exist at all, they are little more than glorified trivia section and should be treated in the exact same manner that trivia sections are treated here. If you have an issue with the layout of other articles, please take it up on the discussion page of that article and don't bring it up here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw the ill advised portion of my comment. For the rest of my reply, go here.--Mactographer (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)\

I left a longer version of this on my talk page,[2] but the short version is.. It is not the responsibility of the editors of this article to fix the problems on other articles, it is up to the editors of those articles to fix them. However, if you wish to take it upon yourself to improve those other articles, let us know and we'll be glad to assist you. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I've dismantled the 'Controversies'/'Criticisms' subarticles/sections on six 2008 presidential candidates — Clinton, Giuliani, McCain, Biden, Hunter, Richardson. Three Dems, three GOPers. I've done heavy biographical work towards improving the articles of five political figures who are candidates — Clinton, McCain, Giuliani, Gravel, Hunter. Again, no partisan alignment. I've done all sorts of grunt work for keeping the presidential campaign subarticles up to date, including for Obama, HRC's mortal enemy. I wrote the Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008#Poor_debate_performance_in_Philadelphia section, which covers in great detail the moment when HRC's campaign began to falter. I've argued with the Ron Paul editors and that's more difficult than any of the rest of this! I don't work for any campaign and I don't volunteer for any campaign and I haven't contributed to any campaign. And for my troubles I get called a "Clinton sock puppet staffer". I picked my username three years ago and it's still just as accurate now. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Wasted Time. Just for the record, I wasn't directing my sock puppet comment to ANYONE in particular, least of all you. --Mactographer (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm closing this request, as it doesn't seem to have been made through WP:Requested moves and thus no admin is going to close it for us. It's been open for two and a half weeks now, with diminishing new input. Those opposing the move outnumber those supporting it by about 2 to 1; there is clearly no consensus to move it. This is a result consistent with previous requests for moves, such as this one, which was made through RfM and closed by an admin. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton — Most people refer to her as just Hillary Clinton. That's what she now refers to herself during the primary campaign. Most media refer to her as Hillary Clinton. Other women on WP don't have their maiden names in their titles. —Tocino 02:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support I'm the person who requested move after all. -- Tocino 02:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This has been discussed before; a request for move was done earlier this year and decisively defeated, see Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_5#Requested_move. Hillary Rodham Clinton is her official name, see her official Senate page and her signature there. This was also the name she announced that she preferred when she became First Lady in 1993, see [3]. Regarding the current presidential campaign, she's been trying to keep it short, and while sometimes she does use just "Hillary Clinton", in fact in most of her literature she's just "Hillary", no last name at all, for example see her campaign bio at [4]. The serious media generally refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, see for example any New York Times article, such as [5]. The Times also uses Hillary Rodham Clinton to title its profile page on her. Wasted Time R 05:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose For all the reasons Wasted Time R has summarized. This has been discussed at great length and nothing has changed - her official name and signature are Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary Clinton is of course a redirect, so anyone leaving off the Rodham gets directly to this page. This is not a question of including a woman's "maiden name" - this is the name she goes by, as many women do. No valid reason for changing this has been given.Tvoz |talk 07:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose First, because Hillary Rodham Clinton is her own preferred naming, second, because it is the name of initial mention in the news and so will be the standard naming for reference and archivng of news and information. A weak third reason: this has been voted on before, and settled, and the previous voting result should itself carry weight. CouldOughta 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Based primarily on her signature as used in the Senate. --StuffOfInterest 15:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose It is her full name that she prefers to be called Blaze33541 (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Per the naming conventions, which say that the article should be named what the greatest number of people would recognize it as and suggests just first and last names. It does not matter how she signs or what she calls herself, most people call her just Hillary Clinton. KnightLago (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Per KnightLago's reasoning. Slydevil (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Per Wasted Time R. She goes by Hillary Rodham Clinton. This should be the end of the story. Yilloslime (t) 01:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Per New York Times and herself. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support Per KnightLago's reasoning. Jaxfl (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Legal name she's using over our opinion of what her name should be. Mbisanz (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - Per established naming conventions, "Hillary Clinton" is more popular. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - per Wasted Time R. Ironically we wouldn't need to be having this discussion were it not for the attitude of people from Arkansas in the 70-80s but anyway Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Google hits: 13,800,000 results for Hillary Clinton. Just 1,770,000 results for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Google News hits: 41,966 hits for Hillary Clinton. 21,154 hits for Hillary Rodham Clinton. --Tocino 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Google hits is not a determinant by itself. We call our article Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, even though Google hits for that are easily outnumbered for Google hits for Jacqueline Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy, and other variants. Wasted Time R 17:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Christine Todd Whitman is another example. Gets more Google hits as Christine Whitman or Christie Whitman, but those are not what the article is named. She, like Hillary, retains her original last name as part of her current name, and so do we. Wasted Time R 23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Christine Todd Whitman is a poor example because most people call her by her full name. That is how she is known. This is not the case for Hillary. She is known by most people just as Hillary Clinton. KnightLago (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, when she was governor of New Jersey most people called her Christie Whitman. That's why she gets more google hits that way. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. I am not from New Jersey, so I have always known of her with all three names. KnightLago (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Her campaign website is Hillary Clinton.com KnightLago (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As explained above, her campaign is trying to use the shortest name possible, usually just "Hillary". Dollars to donuts, if she gets elected, she'll make it clear that she's President Hillary Rodham Clinton, just as upon arriving at the White House in 1993 she announced to the press that she was First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. If she doesn't get elected, she'll return to being Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems partially a debate about whether to defer to the article's subject herself (she clearly prefers all three names - see her autograph, signature, or preprint signature) vs. the most common usage (only two names are preferred by the public and most media). I don't know which one trumps the other, but it should be noted that this is also a discussion about ~~sexual~~ gender politics. Hillary's continued use of her maiden name is seen by many as a significant statement, refreshing to some and controversial to others. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 02:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK the primary reason were having this discussion is indeed because of gender politics although not so much modern day attitudes (at least as far as I know most people don't care if she prefers to stick with her maiden name at least outside the US) but because she changed her name because of the situation in the 70s - 80s. If she had stayed with Hillary Rodham there would be no discussion but unfortunately this did not happen Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article length

I must say, this article is, in the words of another editor, "grotesquely too long". We are currently pulling up at 130KB. It took me about 30 seconds just to add the {{very long}} tag, simply because it took the server forever to parse it. According to WP:SIZE, the ideal length is 30-50KB (I will concede this is a bit small), >60KB means probably should be broken up, and >100KB means almost certainly should be divided up. We're a full 30KB over that. This article needs to have several sections moved into subarticles. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to actually read WP:SIZE, particularly the portion that says "of readable text". This article has at most 53kb of readable text. A little outside WP:SIZE's limits, but definitely not grotesquely so. The remainder of the page's size is due almost exclusively to the 285 citations. So, no. This page does not need to have several sections moved into sub-articles. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 08:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for informing me of what I need to do. I'm glad we all respond so well to constructive criticism around here, instead of taking things personally, as if they're personal attacks. In any case, as I'm sitting here trying to load the page to verify your claim (I got 58K), it took literally 30 seconds to do so. Upon looking at the article, it also appeared clear to me that (*gasp*) 285 citations is a bit much (as in, do we really need 5 citations per sentence: Clinton set records for early fundraising,[219] which Obama then topped in the following months[237] before Clinton later regained the money lead;[238] but Clinton generally maintained her lead in the polls.[239][240]) - perhaps we can consolidate some of those so the page doesn't take 30 seconds for users to load. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Right now, per [6] , her article is the 209th largest article on the encyclopedia at 133,859 bytes (includes wikimarkup, etc). The largest non-list article is History of South Africa in the Apartheid era, #24 at 197,990 bytes. I've been tackling and will continue to tackle that page to help make pages more usable, but given the notability of the subject, I'd say to wait until after the primaries to split the page or pull out refs. Come March 2008 either this page will be so expanded that we'll need to split it or it will fade into a Bob Dole like existence. Mbisanz (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. Most of those articles are lists (and, BTW, they need to be shortened too; think "if Johnny jumped off a bridge would you do it too?"). Granted, many Wikipedia articles have been getting longer, but that doesn't mean they don't need to be split up. Splitting up an article, just because of its prominence, does not mean it will worsen the article. In fact, the whole point of splitting it up is to make it easier to read, and to take less time to render, and easier to edit (if your computer is anything less than pretty modern, try to edit the page as a whole; you will fail). The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, splitting will not, in and of itself, worsen an article. On the other hand, doing a major split of a current events, contentious BLP would probably invoke many editor complaints. Also, its easier to split and article when there are not as many news stories on it occuring. I hear the trying to edit a large page. After my first attempt at Special:Longpages, I installed the edit section 0 monobook to add the split tag without crashing.

That being said, where would you propose to split things out? If its something thats not that contentious, I wouldn't oppose it. The Arkansas years look like they might be split without issue. On the other hand, I would oppose removing any citations, since this is a BLP and sometimes multiple citations reinforce th verifiability of a point. Mbisanz (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that there is Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton as a main article, the corresponding section could and should be cut down to about 5 sentences, with no subsections. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem with the loading time of this article, but it's due to a Wikipedia technical issue with how long it takes to parse and display references that use the {{cite}} template. I'm hopeful that at some point the MediaWiki template implementation will improve. Failing that, I can try to write a converter program that unrolls the {{cite}} usages into "manual" equivalents. There are several biographical articles now that are slow to load due to this effect, and where the converter would be useful, not just this one. As for some of the other suggestions, reducing the number of references is easy to say, hard to do; when this article was up for FAC, everybody wanted their little sentence or clause that they doubt, explicitly sourced. And even outside FAC, there are some editors who just love to come along and stick {{Fact}} tags in. Regarding reducing the Senate career section summary, I already got howls of outrage when I tried to move one parenthetical sentence to the daughter article! Everybody thinks the daughter articles are second-class citizens and that by moving something to them you're hiding it. The best answer is to fix the technology that's making the loading slow. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the heading 'Presidential campaign of 2008'

Regarding the heading 'Presidential campaign of 2008', is the 2nd paragraph really needed? Does it contribute to anything about either candidate? I had to read it twice to get it. I see it as ... Clinton led first ... then Obama and Edwards were close ... then Clinton led again decisively ... then Obama topped her ... then Clinton beat Obama again ... and now she's winning still. ........ Perhaps someone can re-write. My vote is too remove it (Oxfordden (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)).

Writing a history of a campaign as it's happening is a fool's errand.
Nevertheless, that is what we are trying to do. It will get re-written later in retrospect, but this is what we can do for now.
The sequence that you give accurately describes the up-and-down-and-up nature of a two-year-long political campaign. But at least you get from this that Clinton has consistently been at or near the lead the whole time she's been running. The comparable John McCain or Mike Huckabee sections would read very differently, as would the Mike Gravel or Duncan Hunter sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would have better flow if the section stated the consistency (in one sentence) as you've pointed out in item #3. In addition, is there a difference in 'consistency in maintaining a lead over two years' and 'a consistent surge in the poles during the Iowa Caucuses'? I will grant that continued edits during dynamic developments are neither efficient nor worthy, however; I see my proposed reduction in prose (as initially suggested) to: (1) not diminish the quality of this Wiki;(2) mitigate other concerns over length of the article. Cheers! (Oxfordden (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

I'm not sure what you're saying about Iowa caucus polls — they are notoriously hard to get a consistent pattern on, since the voting sample is small and the caucus rules make the end result more complicated than polls can easily reflect. Iowa polls at best reflect a crude sense of who the front-runners are, and for the Dems that's been the big three all along. As for length, there's really only two paragraphs on the horserace in this section, and I don't think that's inappropriate. The "prior year" is when most of a national primary campaign happens; typically it's all over by mid-February of the election year. I've been pretty ruthless about moving material out of this section and into the campaign daughter article, which goes into much more detail on the events of 2007, as you can check for yourself. To say, as I think you want to say, just that "Clinton has been ahead during all of 2007" is an oversimplification: the Clinton camp was worried in mid-year when Obama was out-fundraising them and out-mindsharing them, and they have been very, very worried in the past month and a half, when indeed some pundits had their whole campaign collapsing. Just in the last few days it looks like their poll numbers are stabilizing again, but we'll see if that's for real or just a blip. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a real big fan of poles and pundits which is why I moved toward voting to remove the cyclical discussion (although I do agree that the length is relatively small). However, I don't see how it greatly contributes to anything - and therefore again - seeking to remove non-essential material to alleviate the on-going length discussions. there is little impact whether it remains or is removed - so - if there is no burning need to prune - leave it as is ... but I still vote to remove :-) (Oxfordden (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

"the junior United States Senator from New York"

Shouldn't it be "the junior United States Senator _of_ New York"? 153.1.30.135 (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No. You are elected by your state, then you go to Washington, D.C. to actually join the Senate. Hence you are "from" whatever state. See [7], or if you are located in the U.S., watch C-SPAN 2 for a few minutes. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Need of re-write

This article is in serious need of re-write for neutrality. Don't mean to criticize those that have worked on this article already.Bothsidesspin (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to be a lot more specific about exactly where you think neutrality is currently lacking. Please be aware that this article is GA, has been through FAC, and a lot of editors have looked at it. Also, the change you made, to begin the article with a long digression about how she did or didn't get her name, gives WP:Undue weight to a minor point that correctly belongs in the footnote it's in. I have reverted that change. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Bothsidesspin. Much of the article is written with a very slight and likely unintended pro-HRC pov. E.G. This sentence: "as being an enabler to her husband's indiscretions by not obtaining a divorce" there are many other ways in which she could have been seen as an enabler other than just by not getting a divorce, for instance by throwing up the right wing conspiracy deflectionary defense and by putting forth such spirited attacks against Flowers and Jones. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there an objection to just removing the limiting phrase "by not obtaining a divorce"? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the general complaint, you need to point out each place where you think the article is not neutral; we can't read your mind!

In terms of this specific case: 1) I don't think she said much herself about Flowers and Jones; 2) the VRWC charge covered all the attacks against the Clintons since they became nationally known in 1992, including lots of stuff that had nothing to do with Bill's infidelities (Whitewater, Arkansas Project, Vince Foster, etc.); she and most of the White House had a bunker mentality long before the Lewinsky story broke; so I don't think VRWC can be seen as part of "enabling" anything, rather it was just the sudden outburst of a lot of pent-up frustration and political anger. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But are you saying that the only way she is seen as an enabler is by not obtaining a divorce? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But the article can't get into every psychodrama of the Clinton years. The Monica business was on 24-hour cable news channels for a year, and at one time or another every theory under the sun was advanced towards what made Bill and Hillary tick or not tick. Truth is, we don't know. Living History and My Life are both circumspect and suspect in this regard. Other accounts, such as Bernstein's A Woman in Charge, are full of supposition and unnamed sources. Clinton-hating books, of which there are legion, are full of much more. This section of the article advances some of the more common reactions towards Hillary during the Lewinsky affair, but it's by no means an exclusive list. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As for your first comment above, I would wager that most Wikipedia biographical articles have a "very slight and likely unintended pro-subject pov." Indeed, the rules of WP:BLP almost require it: the burden of proof is on any criticism or negative portrayal that is added to the article, and the biographical subject is always the beneficiary of any doubt. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still not getting my question across. I'd like to only remove the non-divorce reference because it infers that the non-divorce is the only perceived enabling aspect. I do not want to add any other aspects of enabling. The new wording would change from "others criticized her as being an enabler to her husband's indiscretions by not obtaining a divorce" to simply "others criticized her as being an enabler to her husband's indiscretions," Would that be agreeable to you? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because a very common public response at the time was, "Why doesn't she divorce the bastard? I sure as hell would." We can't leave that out. We already capture some of what you are looking for, I think, in the following clause: "while still others accused her of cynically staying in a failed marriage as a way of keeping or even fostering her own political influence." Wasted Time R (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Lewinsky scandal [...] needs more attention

The scandal was an important aspect of Mrs. Clinton's public exposure during her time as First Lady. It is important to reveal the extent of the President's bizarre sexual activity which she had to deal with because her chosen way of dealing with it is an important part of her own record of decision making. The readers can not adequately understand the dynamics of the situation at the time without the famous "cigar" testimony which has become as historically memorable a part of their time in the White House as has JFK's trist with Marilyn Monroe in a closet. It is not sufficient to simply refer to it as an extramarital affair or even a "scandal" without including some details to provide context for the First Lady's handling of the matter. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, it is sufficient to simply refer to it as a scandal. the details offer no specific value to this article, and violate WP:BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please specify what part of WP:BLP is violated. It is not sufficient to make unsubstantiated claims of policy violations. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

presumption of privacy. yes, she's a well-known figure. the problem is, the events you are describing are not events in which ms clinton participated. the specifics are relevant to the bio of bill clinton and the bio of monica lewinsky. the specifics are not relevant to ms. clinton's bio. you're welcome to include well-sourced material describing the anguish mr. clinton's proclivities caused ms. clinton, but including the specific details is merely sensationalistic, and violates ms. clinton's privacy. Anastrophe (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Starr report is well publicized and circulated. Anything in it is non-private and not subject to a presumption of privacy. The top paragraph explains why the details are important to the reporting of Mrs. Clinton's time as First Lady. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please allow others to comment in order to reach a consensus on this matter before reverting again. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

no, you're simply performing WP:OR as your justification for adding it. find a source that describes ms. clinton's reaction to the material, and it'll fly. right now you're just adding tittilating content for no justifiable reason whatsoever. controversial information should be held back until consensus is found, not left in a WP:BLP until enough people point out what i have above.Anastrophe (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe is completely correct - and in fact we are required to remove material that raises BLP concerns, which this clearly does. Tvoz |talk 21:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is getting an accurate and believable account of what HRC thought or felt. It's reasonable for us to guess that the sordid public discussion of the Bill-Monica acts on 24x7 cable news made her more miserable than past presidential wives may have been from the classical "discreet" affairs of their husbands that the press didn't report ... but to do this in a way that passes WP:V is tough. But even if we did add something to this effect, we can do it much more tersely than User:Mr.grantevans2's contribution did. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but lack of terseness is not the only problem - it seems to me that this was an attempt to include the most salacious detail possible, for purposes that anyone can speculate on. Those details about alleged acts between other people just don't belong in her article unless she commented on them, or similar. I'm also not convinced that what a person felt at a given moment in time is encyclopedic on its own - but your point about verifiability trumps that anyway. Tvoz |talk 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I must not have communicated very well. I do not think the way she felt about the Bill-Monica acts is encyclopedic but I do think the way she reacted as First Lady is encyclopedic: the reason being that the First Lady position carries with it a certain amount of authority and responsibilities (think Elanore Roosevelt) as well as moral leadership. I have no opinion about her way of dealing with it but some might see it as co-dependency or stand by her man or even practical, goal oriented persistance and any event which has the potential to portray any of those characteristics is important in terms of an encyclopedic presentation. Also, her deflective reference to the "vast right wing conspiracy" has been accepted as encyclopedic and so I think her reaction to the details of the Starr report would also be. But in order to include her reactions we need to first include some details to provide context for the event she reacted to, I would think. It just seems to me that the Bill-Monica acts were such a huge media and political deal in the life and coverage of HRC not that long ago as well as the Paula Jones event and today it seems to have faded almost entirely from the public consciousness. However, an encyclopedia should not have such a short term memory. If the consensus is that WP:V is the only problem, then maybe we can concentrate on that? I'm certainly willing to just drop the whole thing if no one else thinks it is worthwhile but I certainly think the way she handled a major political, personal and impeachable event is extremely important to her bio. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

again, you are sythesizing a scenario under which you believe these details are relevant. but contextually you've provided zero reliable references that would corroborate that scenario. you're merely including an excerpt from the starr report that you find particularly bothersome. we don't know what portions of the starr report may or may not have bothered ms. clinton to any particular degree, because as far as i know, she's never directly addressed it (nor is she required to). you might as well add a description of a scene from a Ron Jeremy film to the article, on the assumption that ms. clinton may have seen it - it has equal standing in terms of being verifiable for inclusion - in other words, none. Anastrophe (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

HRC herself provides verifiability in her book; "Living History". HRC thinks the cigar incident is relevant as she addressed it in her own book; "Hillary Clinton's book, Living History,... also tackles all of the other controversies that dogged the Clintons during their time at the White House, such as ... her reaction to the Kenneth Starr report, which included the most graphic details of her husband's exchanges with Lewinsky, including the story about the cigar."[8]

There are also some other reliable sources indicating the relevance of the Lewinsky matter within HRC's own political life.

"One of her friends said that whenever he misbehaved, her first reaction was not 'You've been a bad boy,' but, 'How can we get out of this?'"[9]

"Come the day of reckoning, Hillary Clinton should be named an "unimpeached co-conspirator" for her longstanding role in abetting his illicit sex and ongoing lies."[10]

"Tom Brokaw: "What many people, especially women, are asking tonight is how much more can Hillary Clinton take? Now the President’s videotaped testimony accompanied by thousands of pages of lurid details of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In fact, she seems to be winning more admirers than detractors during this crisis."Kelly O’Donnell: "Today many American women see her in a different light. Not simply as the First Lady, but now as the first defender, first protector of her family. A role no President’s spouse ever played before, thanks to excruciatingly painful revelation’s about her husband’s infidelity. A role no American woman would envy."O’Donnell played soundbites of women sorry for her followed by a mother daughter contrast with the daughter saying it’s great she stands by him and the mother suggesting that means we all might as well be stomped on.O’Donnell: "Counselor Sue Berger says woman’s anger toward Mrs. Clinton is more of a reflex than a recommendation of what the First Lady should do."After a clip of the counselor O’Donnell went a swim fitness class in Glendale, California where "some here personalize her pain and know the damage caused by infidelity."One woman insisted sympathy for Hillary is well deserved and another urged her to dump him after he leaves office.O’Donnell concluded: "But that choice is her’s alone. For now Hilary Clinton’s public face projects a quiet dignity, while many women who support her say that speaks volumes."[11]

"The strong negative feelings about Senator Clinton focus on her role as Bill's wife: they date back to the Clinton relationship during the Monica Lewinsky imbroglio. Those who dislike Hillary don't approve of the way she responded to Bill's priapic escapades. As a result, they don't trust her. Our dinner companion asserted that Hillary should have divorced Bill; her logic was if she couldn't control her husband, she wouldn't be able to control the country."[12] Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still seeing a leap in logic here. The [13] talks about how her book covers the difficult part of her receiving the Starr report, and then seems to speculate that it was the cigar incident that would've been most troubling.

The second and third assertions indicate the affair was a political issue, but I'm not seeing the cigar referenced in them. The fourth and fifth assertions again indicate strong marital problems due to the affair, but I see nothing on the cigar indicident playing any different role in her life than the allegations of Clinton biting women he was having affairs with.

We already spend 310 words discussing the Lewinsky scandal and discuss the marital difficulties, their mention in her book, criticisms of her staying with Bill, etc. I'm not seeing what new is to be added. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine then.It does seem that is the consensus (that nothing new needs to be added). Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Other talk page???

Has anyone realized that there is a whole separate talkpage under just plain Hillary Clinton, without the Rodham. Im guessing a copy paste instead of move?71.174.200.210 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? At [14] I just see a redirect to this talk page. Where exactly is this separate page? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

okay then somebody must have fixed it.71.174.200.210 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 Iowa Caucus results

I think the Iowa caucus results on the article page (which I can't edit) should be listed to 2 decimal points: in actuality, Edwards got 29.75% while Clinton got 29.45%, a difference of .28%. The media seems to have failed to notice that the difference is miniscule (and even a 1% difference would really be a non-difference). At least wikipedia could get it right if this were changed! See offical Iowa results at http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/. This is just yet another example of the media manipulating facts to make a better story - what kind of a headline would "Edwards beats Clinton by .28%" be? Zzalzzal (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're saying. And it gets worse! If you look at the actual estimated national delegate counts, what really counts at national convention time, due to how they are apportioned it's Obama 16, Clinton 15, Edwards 14 — really a three-way tie, but with Clinton in second place in any case. The campaign article mentions this in describing the Iowa results. But perception is everything in American politics; everyone reported Clinton as finishing third, and all the TV news broadcasts and websites typically round off to the nearest percentage point (including the one I just linked to), so that's they way it is for us as well. Maybe before 2012 I'll move to Iowa, so I too can get to decide who the next president will be ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[..]allegations/denials omitted

In light of the pov concerns brought up by others (see rewrite topic above and attempt at NPOV tag), I have been reviewing the article to see if that concern has merit. Please pardon me if this matter has been discussed before, but I could not see a reference to it. Obviously the matter should be mentioned only in a minor way and as allegations and denials rather than fact, but it does seem odd to not mention the allegations at all when there are over 3,000 google hits [...] There is an entire section relating to Ron Paul's denials of allegations [15] so I don't see why there is no mention of HRC's denials. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There are google hits on all kinds of crap. To me, this is a no-brainer omission on WP:BLP grounds. Ever since the Seigenthaler controversy, Wikipedia has been adamant about not including this kind of junk. The Ron Paul analogy is completely inapt, as a newsletter under his name was published that made a bunch of vile racist claims. If Hillary put outs a newsletter with vile racist claims, then says it was really written by somebody else, you can be sure we'll include coverage of that matter here. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Seigenthaler comparison is strange because that incident was based on non reliable sourced allegations put into an article. The link you removed was to the New York Daily News and I don't see why you removed that link from this talk page discussion since it covered her denials of the accusations? By removing that link and making an unwarranted comparison to a non reliable sourced smear article, you've misrepresented the comment I placed above. Please explain why you think her denials of these allegations are not includable since you earlier said that her responses to allegations were includable? I think you might misunderstand the WP:BLP policy as it certainly does not preclude inclusion of a very public person's denials of accusations when those denials are published in several major New York newspapers like the New York Daily News, NY Observer and others. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't pull your comments, Tina did. But as I understand it, to some fairly large degree WP:BLP applies just as much to Talk pages as it does to the actual article. In any case, the mainstream media game of seeing public figures forced to deny Internet/tabloid-level rumors that aren't true, and then reporting on the denial when they weren't willing to report the original untruth, is not one that Wikipedia chooses to play. These articles are meant to be read ten or fifty years from now; they do not have to represent every scurrilous burbling of the undernews as it happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and my apologies for assuming you removed the link. None of this is any big deal but it just seemed to me that these scandalous events,allegations and denials are encyclopedic (if reliable sourced) even if they are scandalous, but maybe I am wrong about that. Thanks again for taking the time to thoroughly explain the points you made. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Choking back tears

Should we add Clinton's emotional New Hampshire momment? It has shades of Edmund Muskie's momment in 1972. Just curious folks. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been added to the campaign article. The main article campaign section is being kept to the bare minimum pending knowing what the key events really were. This is unlikely to make much difference; she got choked up because she was badly fatigued and realizing she was probably going to lose the race. It's not going to cause her to lose the race. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not assume why she got choked up, or even if she did. Since Wasted Time states his opinion as to why she said what she did (attributing it to fatigue and fear) then I will state my opinion. It was a typical, well rehearsed and planned bit of drama similar to how (on TV in ~~1981~~ 1992[16]) she deflected the Bill/Paula Jones sex incident. It was done in front of a very HRC friendly ABC reporter named Snow and she not only answered the question asked("how do you do it") but used that question to answer the one she pretended was asked ("why do you do it"). Then she managed in her so-called spontaneous and emotional state to get in her major Obama attack points: "Some of us are ready and some of us are not" ..."I don't want to see us fall backwards"

fall backwards??? Don't the Democrats feel that has already happened under the Bush admin.? Isn't that a hint that Obama would cause the USA to fall backwards from where the Bush admin has put the country? Isn't that extreme fear mongering about an Obama presidency?

This was a classic Clinton move: when the back's to the wall, then pull out the feigned sincerety. At least that's my opinion and I am not stating it as fact as was done with the "Fatigue and Fear" explanation above, which is also, obviously, only an opinion. The "tears event" certainly should be included in this BLP in my opinion as it could,as did the ~~1981~~ 1992 act of transparancy, be a defining moment in moving HRC into the Oval office. In fact, to show how much confidence I have in my opinion, I will predict right now that she does much better in NH than predicted prior to the media extravaganza reporting of her show of tears.Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Please limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article. Tvoz |talk 16:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Hillary's bullshit tears should be a part of the article, that means this discussion is clearly related to the improvement of this article.--—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your 1981 reference is ... she was the wife of an ex-one-term-governor then. This article does not have anything about this incident in it, one way or another. Bring your complaints to the campaign article instead. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't know why she choked up. We don't know what effect it will have on the race. We aren't here to speculate on these matters, or to determine these matters. We, as editors, are here to cite what reliable sources have to say about these matters, while keeping in mind WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTE, amongst many other things. i consider HRC to be the next best thing to having a boil lanced, but my opinion has absolutely bupkus to do with writing an encyclopedic biography article. it's nice that some think her tears were bullshit, or orchestrated, or from fatigue, or whatever. opinions duly noted. now, can we get back to the work of maintaining an encyclopedia, as opposed to using this page as a WP:FORUM? Anastrophe (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that motion. It might be hard to differentiate some events as to which article they belong in. Is it possible to merge the presidential campaign section of this article into the main article on that subject?? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, if by 'merge' you mean remove the section from here, that doesn't make sense - the idea is to have a shorter section in the main article that summarizes, gives an overview, talks about trends, but doesn't get overly detailed, and to have details in the sub-article. This article should maintain a section on the election, but without details such as what happened on a particular day at a particular event. Those kinds of details would go in the sub-article if they go anywhere, and the determination of whether they go anywhere would be based on notability, verifiability, etc. We need to be particularly careful to avoid recentism which is always a danger in these kinds of articles - we're not reporting the news, we're writing an encyclopedia. Tvoz |talk 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, that does seem reasonable. I think I understand now the method of deciding which place to put information. So, basically the only part of the NH primary election which would be certain to belong here would be the actual outcome, I think; is that about right? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. BTW, even after your corrections above, you still don't have it right; the 1992 interview was about Gennifer Flowers, not Paula Jones. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was only concerned about weither we should add the moment or not; not about what caused her emotionalism. Didn't mean for this to become a blog. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this moment should be mentioned somewhere, specifically referencing this article: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/poorlittleme-pulls-off-another-clinton-escape/2008/01/09/1199554740241.html

This article suggests the 'tears' were a major factor in her 'surprise' win. It would give an explanation (or rather a cited opinion from a reliable source) as to why there was a discrepancy between the predicted Obama win by 10+% and the final result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.199.71 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are literally several dozen different explanations for the Hillary win floating around ... see [17] for a bunch of them ... this article doesn't have space to go into them, but it could be done in the campaign article. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the point is whether it is generally accepted that the tears was a turning point in the NH primary and if that's the case, perhaps they should be mentioned in that context (as a generally regarded turning point). Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not generally accepted as the sole turning point, or even the most important turning point. Like I said, everybody's got a theory. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Although at this rate, it's possible that the Misty Moment will become accepted as the turning point in popular and political consciousness, regardless of whether it actually was, in which case it may indeed merit inclusion here. We'll see. But I really don't want to open a door in the article to the above harangues on how she was faking it ... all of the candidates were virtual zombies by the time of the New Hampshire vote this year, anything any of them did or said in the last few days is best explained by that factor. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason at all why mentioning the Misty Moment must lead to harangues inside the article. The harangues were done here on talk and hopefully are over with: although your bringing up, once again, your own opinion about what best explains what she did serves to perpetuate the blog type analysis, because I did not see a zombie in front of ABC news sitting at a diner teary-eyed while saying that "some of us are ready and some of us are not" and "I don't want to see us going backwards"; I saw a fantastically highly skilled actress,media manipulator and warrioress delivering a killing blow to her opponent in front of a naive television audience with collective A.D.D. who continue to not recognize the stunning intelligence and skill possessed by the Clinton and Bush political families and election machines. If you truly want the discussion here to be void of personal opinion, then please refrain from injecting your own,Wasted, ok? Bottom line is, the Misty Moment is absolutely considered a turning point already and belongs in this BLP. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitt Romney choked up in Michigan yesterday, see [18]. Please go pester that article's editors with how he's a highly skilled actor, manipulator, and warrior. Or think about these candidates as humans, and realize that perhaps it was that he's fatigued, he just came off two primary losses within a week that he once expected to win, and someone mentioning how they admired his father got to him. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should follow Tvoz suggestion to limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article. If you hadn't inserted your "fatigue" and "This is unlikely to make much difference" theories at the top of this topic then we wouldn't have gone down this path. However, I should also stop with the analysis and I am stopping right now. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's now been a week since this happened, and it's still being talked about a lot and seems sure to become part of 2008 campaign lore, so I've reversed my previous disinclination and added a mention of it to the campaign section. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Wasted. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasted, I just read it and added the word "apparently" for npov since there is substantial media disagreement as to whether she really choked up or was acting (in which case it would not fit the definition of choking up). Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Choking up" describes a physical state of interrupted speech, catch in the voice, and teary eyes. Which was undoubtedly there. Whether it was real or acted or triggered by her programmers in Satan's Political Control Center, I leave for you to fantasize about. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm wrong. Dictionary definition of "choke up" in this sense is "To be unable to speak because of strong emotion." So it does imply the emotion is real. I'll look for better wording that describes what happened without presupposing motivation. "Apparently" won't do, because that's a scare term that immediately cues the reader that it was faked. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good to be able to admit wrongness (I was just getting ready to do it myself): but don't look up the definition of "apparently" or you may have to do it again :) Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to use the exact description the earlier Chicago Trib cite uses: "her eyes welled with tears and her voice broke". That's just a physical description, it doesn't presuppose motivation. As for "apparently", my dictionary has a little mini-essay on how it has multiple meanings depending upon context and "writers should take care", but the meaning I'm leery of is "Appearing as such but not necessarily so." I think this will be better. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes ! That did the trick. Now that sentence reads perfectly. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

City of Birth

Hillary Clinton was actually born in Park Ridge, Illinois not Chicago, Illinois. Hillary Clinton was born in Lutheran General Hospital which is located in Park Ridge, Illinois. Park Ridge is also the site where should would live throughout her life up until the end of her high school career in which she attended Maine Township West High School and Maine Township South High School (for her senior year only), which are both located in Park Ridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.229.79 (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sources are ...? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

reference?

As of now, the article says "and was on the board of Wal-Mart and several other corporate boards." I've never seen this before. Do we have some kind of reference for it? Darkblast93 (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That's what those footnotes in the article give you (for Wal-Mart, notes 94 and 96 in this case). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a user removing "leading" from the lede's of both leading candidates pages

Would someone else help me keep an eye on this guy? He's doing it at Obama's article as well. Bellwether ^B _C 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We have a legitimate question of how to phrase the lead during the primary season. I would prefer the HRC lead to say:

... during 2007 she was consistently the front-runner in national polls for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president. However, after the first two caucuses and primaries of the 2008 season, she was in a tight battle with Senator Barack Obama.

This captures the factor that she was the national polls leader for a long time, but now is in a close battle with Obama, which as of today is the best way to treat this. However, in this edit last night Tina pulled the 2008 part of this; I'm not sure why. Since then, all of this has been removed, which I think is silly. The lead section should indicate whether a candidate is a leader (like Obama or Clinton) to distinguish the few from the many who are not (like Edwards, or Biden or Dodd previously, etc.). Wasted Time R (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Rictxer (sp?) is making it seem as if all the candidates are equal, when two are clearly the leaders. Bellwether ^B _C 14:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(And, for the record, my edit was attempting to add "leading" back into Clinton's article. In the web of edits I must have accidentally reverted it out. Sorry for any confusion. Bellwether ^B _C 14:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, my motivation in adding the "after the first two caucuses and primaries" part is to pre-empt editors who are trying to add specifics about New Hampshire (or whatever the latest event will be) into the lead, which are better in the campaign section or better still in the campaign article. In other words, putting current events into the lead is bad, but if putting a little bit of them in forestalls a lot of edits that would try to put more in, it's good. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And whatever we do, User:Ricxster's edits are clearly wrong, as they remove her 2006 senate reelection and her polarizing character, both of which are well supported by the article body. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to create the illusion that all were equal - just the apparent development that the campaigns of clinton and obama are now, on balance, level. Both should have followed the "a leading candidate" - but mischief was aplay, and some were projected obama as the only leading candidate (which is false.)

Also, i do not think it is totally fair to have negativity in the preamble of a bio, Obama has none and there are plenty of bad points - perhaps i would not be out of place quoting about obamas drug use from his book in the first few sentences of his record...negativity should be kept in the main body. Ricxster (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop. You know that's complete BS. You removed "leading" from Clinton's article, and then attempted to use that as "evidence" to remove it from Obama's. In attempting to revert your removal of the text from Clinton article, I apparently accidentally reverted your re-addition of it. Both candidates are clearly "leading" the rest of the field. You don't particularly like Obama. We get it, and that's fine. You just can't let those likes and dislikes influence the article. Bellwether ^B _C 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My first edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&diff=183127093&oldid=183126225 added the fact she beat a 10 point advantage - never in the history have i removed "leading" from clintons page - i tried to suggest the fact that she is now one of the frontrunners - but that was deleted and is still not at consensus- When i saw that barack had leading, it would be clearly unfair in fact to not suggest the same for clinton. The entire history proves this account. Also, please trying and keep grievances clean of foul language, there is no need for it considering you are in the wrong. Ricxster (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, 14:45, 9 January 2008 Ricxster (Talk | contribs) (137,291 bytes) (Obama "was" the underdog in 2007, now is a leading candidate on his page - clinton was leading, fell and is up - but its not allowed to to be reported. Shocking! - BOTH are leaders.) This is where I attempted to suggest that clinton was now one of the front runners. You really have got the wrong end of the stick to suggest that i took leading out of clintons page when in actual fact I put it in. Obama folk really must hate that reality to be so vindictive in their actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs)

You made this change that led me to believe you were actively removing "leading" from her article to justify removing it from Obama's. If that was mistaken, I apologize. With that said, you need to participate in talk discussions, and attempt to influence consensus before making unilateral major changes in high-profile articles. I do agree with you on the negativity in Sen. Clinton's lede, though. It seems a bit out-of-balance when compared to other candidates. Bellwether ^B _C 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bypassing the question of who did what, let me remind everyone that this is a GA article, it's been through FAC, and a lot of different editors have looked at it. This lead section has been stable for some time, and does not require significant changes just because HRC won a primary, or because she's in a tight contest with Obama. Nor does this lead need to be compared precisely with Obama's lead; the two have very different histories before getting to this juncture in their careers. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And regarding "negativity", the lead accurately reflects the most important events and public reactions of her life and career to this point, regardless of whether those things are "negative" or "positive". Everything in the lead is amply supported in the body of the article. HRC was a groundbreaking, larger-than-life, polarizing figure in American political life long before she ran for president; we can't ignore all that just because she is running for president. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, Ricxster's desire that "negativity should be kept in the main body" is not supported by the WP:LS guideline, which says, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Wasted Time R (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed 'leading candidate' from the bottom of the leading section (as we don't need it). Please, let's leave it at that as further edit warring may lead to this article being 'locked'. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That leaves what's happened in 2008 hanging, after describing the 2007 polls. I'd still like to add one sentence after that, that describes the current state of the race. For now, it could be as simple as "In the 2008 primary season, she is in a tight race with Barack Obama." Wasted Time R (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to restore that sentence yesterday, and one user's objection was that the lead is supposed to be a general overview of "the year as a whole" and not reflective of current events. I disagree, and would support bringing that sentence back. What use is an article that can be updated in real time if the lead doesn't reflect current perceptions of that person/the presidential race? That sentence is also general enough that it doesn't have to be picked apart with every new primary, so that's another point in its favor. Cue the Strings (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should omit 'leading' from both articles (Clinton & Obama), afterall the Democrats have only been through 'two' contests to date. We are sorta jumping the gun people, we should wait until after February 5th, before declaring anybody 'leading'. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be a bit silly, don't you think? I mean, every major poll shows Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton. Now the first two state races have confirmed it. All removing "leading" does is make WP look silly for not acknowledging that Biden, Richardson, et al are most definitely not on the same electoral plane as Obama and Clinton. Bellwether ^B _C 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all silly. We can't predict that Clinton or Obama will get the nomination (by having leading in their articles). There's always the potential that both might get wiped out February 5th. We shouldn't be crystal-balling folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. No one is making any predictions. It's a simple observation to note that they are currently "leading"; it's not a prediction, it's a fact of the situation on the ground right now. Could it change? Sure. There could always be such terrible skeletons found in closets that one or both would have to drop out. At that point they would no longer be "leading" and the word would be removed. As of now, they are "leading", and the word should stay. It's silly to pretend like Biden, Richardson, and the rest (other than, maybe Edwards) aren't trailing these two by a significant margin. Bellwether ^B _C 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I've no intentions of editiing 'leading' out. Just wanted to have my say. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Clinton & Obama have delegates (the other don't), I'll concede the argument. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] OK - first, I was editing very late last night so am now looking at this with fresh eyes and apologies if my explanations weren't as clear or edits as consistent as they might have been. But here's what I think in the light of day with a little sleep behind me:

I don't recall now if I edited this one way or the other but I do think the first sentence should say "a leading candidate" - she is a leading candidate, and I don't see any good reason for not saying so, in fact it seems odd not to say so. Just not "the" leading candidate, which I know no one was suggesting. So I think we should reinstate "leading".
The reason I had removed the 2008 sentence is it seemed too specific to me at the time - I do think the lead should not be a day-to-day updating of current events, but a longer view with an eye to keeping it as stable as possible, as befits the GA status we've worked hard for - as Wasted expresses here, with which I agree completely.
But at the same time, on reflection, I do think we need to say something in the lead about what's happening now that the primaries have started, since we (correctly, I think) talk about the 2007 lead-up to the primaries. My edit removing that sentence in effect left 2008 as question mark, and that doesn't make sense either so I withdraw that edit.
The wording now is ok with me - In the 2008 primaries she is in a tight race with Senator Barack Obama. but I would add "early" or say As the 2008 primaries begin, she is in a tight race...

Sorry if I added to the muddle last night - I also tried to accommodate the editor who entered the RPC poll, but I agree with the way that ended up. Tvoz |talk 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. I've incorporated your suggestion for the '2008' sentence into the lead. Also note that the lead's opening reference to her being a candidate doesn't say 'leading', because as explained in the section below, the first paragraph just has fundamental IDs in it, and the second through fourth paragraghs contain development upon those IDs and are thus where the 'leading'/'front runner'/'tight race' type of characterizations should go. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me the way you now have it. Tvoz |talk 22:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur this - there is nothing incorrect in fact - although, the poll may be a little outdated - but on balance and considering there is no new new national statistical poll data (and Fox (the irony!) is still using it) - i think it should stay for the time being. The fact that she would make history as the first woman president should be a feature in the lede as it is rather historic....Ricxster (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First woman to win a Presidental primary?

What about Shirley Chisholm? --JamesB3 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You can win delegates without winning primaries. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

~~I think he's right. Chisholm was the first woman to win a Presidential primary. CBS got it wrong.~~ Looks like it's just a rumor. According to her New York Times obituary, she didn't win any primaries. johnpseudo 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Clinton is the first (PS- anybody notice Chelsea's jumping up & down, after getting off the campaign bus? It struck my funny). GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reorganized lead

Bellwether_BC, regarding your reorganization of the lead, I know you meant well, but I do not think it is wise as it breaks the chronological flow of her life. The scheme of the lead has always been: First paragraph gives name, birthdate, and three basic IDs (Senator, First Lady, running for president). Second paragaph covers life up until First Lady, third paragraph covers First Lady, fourth paragraph covers her own political career, meaning Senator and presidential candidate. There's no reason this can't stay like this until the general election, if she gets that far (the "leading candidate" would become "Democratic nominee for president"). If she gets elected in November, then all bets are off and the whole article will have to be restructured. But we'll worry about that if and when it happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead felt scattershot, which is why I "reorganized" it. There's info about first ladyship in the first graf, and in the third. It seemed to "flow" from the first graf into the portion I moved up. I won't re-revert, though, as it's not that incredibly important. I do think the "tight race" or "leading candidate" language needs inserted towards the end, and a separate graf broken off from the last one, though, which was another reason for my "reorganization" of the lede. Bellwether ^B _C 18:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't scattershot; the first graph ID's her main "titles", as it were, and then the next three graphs further develop that. And I don't see any need for a separate graf at the end. There should not be any further sentences needed here, even if she gets the nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the section on Peter Paul's new film

This was the #1 google video and has was covered by all major media just a few months ago. It addresses what is described as the largest campaign contribution fraud in the history of the USA.MSNBC trailor It certainly should be mentioned in the BLP I think. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The AP wire stating that Paul is (...) a convicted felon who has sued the Clintons(...). A California appeals court earlier this month ruled that Sen. Clinton should be dismissed from the suit., and that the video is finding a niche on the Internet, I don't think this is relevant enough to be included. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Peter Paul allegations and the video are discussed in United States Senate election in New York, 2000#Hollywood fundraiser and Paul v. Clinton. Given Paul's past criminal record and the complete failures of this lawsuit so far, that's all the attention it merits. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "criminal record" is very minor and less than Bill Clinton's own criminal record. The constant reference to such minor offences (by the Clintons when asked) is an obvious ad hominem deflection by the Clinton team. The you tube video shows clearly that Paul was well respected by the Clintons and worked with them so it's spurious for them to now say he has no credibility.

I think these 2 facts override any tendancies to ignore the issue:

1: there are numerous reliable sources

2: it is an extremely serious allegation by a directly involved party which could,if true, result in a future impeachment of Hillary if elected.

To me it would be similar to leaving the Watergate issue out of Nixon's bio when he was running for re-election. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the AP says that the Judge dismissed Hillary Clinton from Paul's lawsuit in April 2006, citing a California law aimed at reducing frivolous lawsuits and protecting people's First Amendment rights and that the appeal was also rejected, this really looks like it doesn't need to be included. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To compare this with Watergate is absurd. Forget about Paul's credibility, just look at the legal events. Hillary was not criminally charged in this case; her senate campaign finance director was, and he was acquitted. Hillary's senate campaign paid a smallish ($35K) fine for an FEC violation. Hillary was named as one of the defendents in a civil suit, but the judge threw her out as a defendent on the grounds of lack of evidence. The judge's decision was appealed and upheld. Add all this up and it doesn't come rise anywhere near the level of Whitewater, Travelgate, or Filegate, all of which are discussed here. The current treatment in the Senate race article is sufficient. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While Nixon ran for re-election in 1972 it was a similar situation: "But while other newspapers ignored the story and voters gave Nixon a huge majority in November 1972, the White House continued to denounce The Post's coverage as biased and misleading." No convictions of anyone and just a few Washington Post articles; in fact, Watergate was a non-issue in the 1972 election. This thing is different from sex; it's about money and lots of it and improper campaign financing is a big,big deal these days and since her campaign did pay a fine, that is an admission that something inappropriate was done. This matter can be resurrected at anytime by any of several congressional committees. Just the things Wasted mentions above justify inclusion of this matter in an encyclopedia BLP of HRC. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If and when a congressional committee launches an investigation of HRC on this, then it will merit another look for inclusion in the main article. Until then, it's a modest fine for a senate campaign FEC violation and a dismissed, frivilous lawsuit by someone with an axe to grind (the judge even made Paul liable for HRC's legal bills), and so its current placement in the senate campaign article is appropriate weighting. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I truly think this has enough meat and Reliable Sources for this to belong in this BLP right now; but unless someone else here agrees with me, then I'll have to agree with your position not to include any mention of it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See also this new write-up from Factcheck.org on the video. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First Woman as President?

I think the fact that a woman could be, after all the history of male dominance, president of the united states should be in the lede - I have added it, is there consensus? Ricxster (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK; this has been in and out of the lead in the past, I think, but on balance it deserves to be in (although the Obama article doesn't do the equivalent). I've added a bit in the campaign section with a couple of cites, to support adding this to the lead. I've moved and reworded what you added to the top of the lead to the bottom of the lead, where it fits better. In the past, statements like this have gotten challenged — "If Bush and Cheney are both impeached, Nancy Pelosi will become president first!" — so I worded it in terms of being elected, not becoming, president. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted's placement; it is strongly encyclopedic but not deserving of top of the lead. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Scolars actually dispute that Pelosi would become President, if Bush & Cheney were removed (before either could have a confirmed new VP). In a double vacancy scenerio, they argue Pelosi would become 'Acting President' (assumes powers & duties, not office), thus leaving the Presidency vacant until January 20, 2009 (see Presidential Succession Act). GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, see Carl Albert for further discussion on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"was" in lead

We seem to be going back and forth on whether, "During 2007 she was consistently ranked as the front-runner in national polls for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.", or "During 2007, she consistently ranked...", to the point of almost revert warring. I would recommend leaving the Was in, for two reasons. First, the sentence discusses 2007, which is in the past, so was clarifies that. The fact that she continues to be ranked as a front-runner is established in the next sentence (being in a tight race with Obama) and elsewhere in the article. Second, she is the individual being consistently ranked, not the one consistently ranking. From a grammar standpoint, "was" means that she was the individual being ranked, not the one doing the ranking, i.e. "she consistently ranked". My edit summary didn't convey this, so I thought I'd mention it here. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people use a shorthand where omission of the "was" would mean what we want it to mean, but I think that's non-standard and that Ultra is correct. Really, the "was" wasn't put in there to subtly imply anything about Hillary's status, it's just a word! Wasted Time R (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This was my point exactly, but I wasn't going to engage in Ricxter's war, as putting it in again wasn't that important to me. I too think it needs to be in there, though. Bellwether ^B _C 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We could've left out 2007 and simply said she's considered to be the frontrunner... (having the most delegates to date, backs that description). GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be more than a bit POV. The vast majority of the public (WP readers) have no clue about delegate count, and only know that there are basically two very viable Democratic candidates at this point. She's not considered "the frontrunner" anymore, but is instead in a tough race with Obama. Saying otherwise would be inserting needless POV into the article. Bellwether ^B _C 18:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've not a problem with it either way. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The delegate count lead isn't especially significant yet; her lead is due to having more superdelegates and does not reflect more or less popular support. After Super Duper Tuesday, the delegate lead will become very significant. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Was" shouldnt be in - its is redundant - the sentence means the same things regardless. Wikipedia should endeavour to present efficient, logical and coherent articles - having something in that isnt needed reeks of illogic and agenda. I would also call into question the fact that Obama features in Clinton's lede when there is no mention of her in his. Ricxster (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I now believe you're wrong about the first point, per what Ultraexactzz said. As for inefficient, illogical and incoherent articles, you'll find them all over Wikipedia, believe me, and not due to "agenda" but to "sloppy writing by committee"! As for your last point, different sets of editors work on different articles and you get inconsistent approaches to the same subject. Try reading all the articles about TV series or music albums in Wikpedia sometime, you'll see what I mean. There is no plot in Wikipedia to promote Obama over Clinton; if you want to see real candidate promotion, check out the Ron Paul articles sometime. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's drop all these disputes, until & if Clinton gets the Dem presidential nomination; howabout it folks? GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh ... Ricxster's changed it again ... maybe it's time to nominate this for inclusion in WP:Lamest edit wars. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine with me - but out of respect for proper writing - words that are not needed to a sentence should not be there - why are we filling sentences with irrelevance? It means exactly the same thing both ways. Was can be read as she was leader and is not anymore (which is an unknown quantity at this moment) - to avoid this confusion which could have influence in fact - the word should remain out. I dont actually think i have had a debate over a word, life is full of surprises. Bellwether, there is no war - but my concern that things are misleading and could lead to confusion; judging from your edits - you must be an advocate of irrelevance then?, and you are jumping the gun if you see consensus. Is there no third party dispute system in wikipedia? I think playing safe (with removal) for avoidance of confusion is the best course of action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend this article be 'locked', until these disputes are resolved. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ricxster, that's not "playing it safe", that's playing into your persecution complex about this article. "Was" is simply a past tense word. The year 2007 is the past. It's as simple as that. Please stop. Bellwether ^B _C 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I won't replace it again. I'm unwatching this article, as I'm weary of dealing with a user who thinks everyone's out to get his candidate. I'm a Democrat, and have no interest in making Clinton look bad. Yet, it's portrayed as if I have some secret agenda to make Clinton look weak, or whatever. Good luck to the rest of you! Bellwether ^B _C 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't drop out Bellwether - This article should be 'semi-protected' also as the 'third party' I'm supporting your version. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether - you are the only one dead against my ascertation that there exists possibility of the word being of influence in fact, you have not provided any argument for its inclusion - you either a poor debater or wish to remain vague - and from you previous edits and considering the fact your removed my reply from your talk page suggests your are riddled with agenda. I refuse to allow was until there is consensus and a response to the fact that if i could make that mistake (I lecture on Justinian's institutes) others could. Ricxster (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC) I have no favourite in this race and would have dearly liked Rice to run - I am merely rectifying confusion.

Ricxster, with all due respect, the fact that the candidate is acknowledged as a front-runner in the very next sentence would seem to refute the concern that including "was" means that she is no longer a front-runner. Further, I read "She consistently ranked" as saying that she was consistently ranking herself as a front-runner, in a "We're the underdog but we can win" sort of fashion - which is totally incongruent with her actual campaign (and with her actual performance to date). I think, given the sentence following, that there is more potential to misunderstand the sentence than if it includes "was". I also note, as a matter of courtesy, that you have reverted the sentence three times, and may be at risk of sanctions under WP:3RR. Please, if you're willing, discuss the issue here before changing the article again. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec to Ricxster) Are you simply ignoring the whole discussion above. There's no consensus to remove that word. None. As far as my "removal" of your comments from my talkpage, I archive nearly all of my comments within 24 hours, and sometimes much sooner. I only truly "remove" (delete without archiving) comments that are personal attacks or that kind of thing. That said, my discussions with you have been completely unproductive, as you're convinced that I have an "agenda", simply because I believe "was" refers to something that happened in the past. Therefore, I'm disengaging from discussing anything further with you, as it accomplishes less than nothing, though I'm taking GoodDay's advice and not completely disengaging from the page. Someone else can deal with you. Bellwether ^B _C 20:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the only one with an argument with my ascertation on the "was" confusion - which I welcome. (bellwether and goodday had no counter argument) If another concurs here with Ultra, I will leave it be (2-1) - although i still think the possibility that there could be confusion is a violation of our duty to present all knowledge coherently on wikipedia. Ricxster (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for GoodDay, but I've been making the exact same point as Ultra: It causes no confusion, because she's clearly identified as one of the frontrunners, and the only meaning for "was" in this case is to indicate that it happened throughout last year (i.e. the past). Bellwether ^B _C 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In agreement, it causes no confusion. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Wrong, Ricxster, and I object to your tactics here of continually removing the word over objections until you wear down good faith and conscientious editors like Bellwether, and get people to wearily decide they don't care. I think this is an incredibly minor matter, but your approach bothers me more, so I reinstated "was" which is clearer and more precise. I recommend you take a break, as you have seriously violated 3RR - you reverted 5 times I believe in the last few hours - and if you continue you'll end up with a block, I'm quite sure. GoodDay - the article is already semi-protected so that IPs and new accounts can't edit, and has been for a long time because of the vandalism we've faced. Tvoz |talk 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I let it stand then - although, as an academic, i was misled and changed it. Whilst consensus has been reached, I feel now more than ever vindicated when I throw essay's citing wikipedia in the bin (not that my students should be using it anyway). I reject your thoughts on this being minor - confusion and potentially leading influences are of a rather large consequence in regards to encyclopaedia - its a crime that this website claims to be one and it truly is a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot to mention that your personal attack on Bellwether was uncalled for and unacceptable. Bellwether, glad you're sticking around. And as for calling this matter "minor" - I don't think real confusion or misleading is at all minor, but I don't see this as being even close to that. Tvoz |talk 21:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's possible that the reason you were confused by the wording was because you showed up expecting bias and conspiracy at every turn...so that's what you found. --Onorem♠Dil 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As a Brit, I am largely indifferent to who wins the US presidency, although i would have supported rice - my argument was valid but I respect democracy fully and have let it stand. moderate humour/speculationI am still waiting for the EU to take back its rightful place. :)moderate humour/speculation Ricxster (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who Tvoz is, nor have I (to my knowledge) ever interacted with this editor in the past. I fully consider your post here a personal attack, and ask for a retraction. I have little appreciation for "humor" that implies that I'm colluding with other editors to suppress your opinions. Bellwether ^B _C 21:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Do not remove another person's talkpage comments, even when you refactor.

Tvoz, you have proven my point - your POV drives your edits ("I dont see") - this is why wikipedia is fraudulent to the core and reeks of inaccuracy, opinion and will continue to do so until it becomes meaningless. Bellwether initialled profanity on my talk page - I take it that must be a measure of maturity then. I apologise Bellwether - i made an error in who was who.

I have apologised to Bellwether. As an added note, if one wants a lesson in hypocrisy from Tvoz, prepare to be educated. (check my talk page). And this is a respected editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No POV from Tvoz. As for your accusations of "profanity" toward me, what on earth are you talking about? Bellwether ^B _C 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Tvoz is a respected editor. Ricxster, on the other hand, has within his/her first 50 edits on Wikipedia, gotten into a pointless and noxious conflict with other editors. In general, when joining a new community, it's best to keep a low profile while you learn the lay of the land. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this has entered troll territory so I'm going to try not to feed it any more. Anyone who is interested is welcome to read my comments to ricxter here, on his talk page, and in the archives of mine. I stand by them all. As I said, good bye and good luck. Tvoz |talk 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But thank you Wasted and Bellwether (nice to meet you). Tvoz |talk 21:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to meet you as well, Tvoz. Bellwether ^B _C 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You insulted my academic achievement and the hard work I do for my students - regardless of that insult - it violates No Personal Attacks, a institution a respected editor should stand by - i request a retraction noted in my talk page. Its a sad day when altruism is attacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 January 2008

Obama being cited in lede

I question the need for his mention, when there is no concurrence with his lede. I will wait for consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs) 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If Obama is going to be mentioned at this article in this manner, then Clinton should mentioned at Barack Obama in similar manner. But, let's be careful, not to allow things to become a Clinton -vs- Obama thing. Let's not allow these 'two' articles to become extentions of their respective 2008 presidential campaigns. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Obama and Clinton articles are necessarily very different, as the two have led very different kinds of lives until now. So trying to make them assume the same shape is not a useful exercise. And the other point is that these lead issues related to the current state of the campaign aren't worth stressing over too much; within a month, in all likelihood one of them will be the prospective nominee and one of them won't and how to phrase the leads will be clear. And another point is that in all the 25 or 30 explanations I've seen so far for why the Iowa and N.H. votes went the way they did, the state of the candidates' Wikipedia articles was never mentioned once! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No complaints here; let's wait until things evolve further in the Democratic race. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good reason. The two articles are independent and have different topics. Feel free to argue one way or the other, but argue the case on the merits, not by comparison to "the other" article. And indeed, some perspective is useful. We are not WikiNews. If something will be forgotten in 3 days, or even 3 month, it is not particularly important for Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

New Hampshire results

I've cited an article from MSNBC putting the margin of victory at 39 to 36%. I have no idea where CNN is getting their 37% figure; they are the only major news organization I've seen that has used that number for the final result. All the other big names say 39-36. Just see Politico for the hard, final percentage figures: 38.99 for Hillary (rounded up to 39) and 36.39 for Obama (rounded down to 36).UberCryxic (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Go with the 39-36 figure, since the majority of news organization do. CNN doesn't have primacy over the others. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - glad you raised this, Uber - I noticed it too and intended to change it to 39-36 but got distracted. Tvoz |talk 22:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...there seems to be a conflict on the figures. CNN is not the only one reporting 36.5% (or rounded up to 37%). The NY Times [19] says 36.5, And the AP is reporting 37%. [20] As all of the ones reporting 36% seem to be based on 98% or 99% returns, I can only assume that the total is changing with the final tallies. Does anyone have the actual figures released by NH? --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found the official results from the NH Secretary of State. The total is (drumroll).....37% [21] I'll make the change and use this cite. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a really big deal, but as I've pointed out here and there, Loonymonkey, Iowa results round Hillary's 29.5 to 29 while NH results round Obama's 36.5 to 37. I question our use of rounded numbers that seem to favor one candidate over another - and my suggestion has been to use the New York Times' decimalized numbers which is more accurate and doesn't take a position on whether rounding of .5 goes up or down. Tvoz |talk 05:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. It is probably more encyclopedic to provide the decimal number rather than the rounded one, although it could be argued that it throws off the flow of the sentence. But it's better to err on the side of accuracy, especially if different incidents are being rounded in different ways. I would be in favor providing the decimal, not rounding. Whatever we do, it should be consistent. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Slight rewording needed

This line "However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War," is pov,I think, (stating that her changed views was elavated from her former position" could we substitute the words "changed opinions" for "evolving views" ? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of the non-biological meaning of "evolve" is "To develop or achieve gradually", which correctly describes what happened here. The transition told awhile, as this section tries to indicate. The meaning of the word does not indicate that her later views were superior or more refined or better than her earlier views, just different. Indeed even assuming people use the scientific meaning here, "evolve" only implies moving from a primitive to a more organized form, it doesn't imply "better" either. So I don't see any POV in the current wording. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think we can assume why she changed her position, e.g. "(because her views were)developed or achieved gradually". Is that why Romney changed his views? Some sort of natural evolution? There are all kinds of reasons people change their publicly stated views (quite often it's simply wanting to be on the winning side). I still say it's pov to assume what the basis of her changes in view was. I don't pretend to know and I don't think any of us should pretend to know. Maybe it was a "development" or maybe it was politically beneficial at that time. What's wrong with the neutral word "changed"? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the meaning of "evolve" does not presuppose any reason; like Romney, her views may have evolved due to conviction, due to convenience, due to anything. The problem with "change" is that it doesn't indicate the gradualness of the shift, which is important here; it took her two years to change party affiliations, in an era in which many college students became much more radicalized than she in much less time. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where there was a gradual shift. She seemed to make a quick change at the Republican convention because she did not like the way Nelson Rockefeller was treated. I's say the good thing about the word change is that it doesn't presume to know what was going on inside her head. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

She began her departure from the Republican Party in 1966 when she stepped down as president of Wellesley Young Republicans and finished it at the Republican National Convention in 1968. That's two years. Even without being in her head, we can tell that's a gradual process. Did you read all of this article that we use as a cite? It's long, but it will give you the flavor of what she was like back then. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] FWIW, Mitt Romney's article says: As a candidate for office in Massachusetts, Romney claimed to hold liberal or moderate views on abortion; he explains his changing views as a process of evolution, contending that he has gradually come to agree with the conservative position on abortion. Tvoz |talk 05:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. The use of the term "evolve" or "evolution" is a complimentary categorization and self serving to the candidate; It's a decidedly positive pov term as opposed to flip flop, which is the negative pov phrasing. ""changed opinions" is npov and should be used here. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, please consult a dictionary. "Evolve" does not imply anything positive or negative or anything about motivation. There are plenty of political moderates who think Romney has evolved in the wrong direction, for example, and are less likely to vote for his current incarnation than the previous one. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted - I was not presenting the Romney quote as evidence of anything positive or negative, just to answer the question "is that why Romney changed his views" above and to show that referring to the evolution of a person's ideas is somewhat standard, non-POV usage. Tvoz |talk 05:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton’s Wellesley Thesis

Since it's mentioned in the article should this link be included? It's a really good read. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because it's a copyright violation and linking to it is prohibited by the Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works policy. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a source showing it's a copyright violation. From what I see, the Clintons' only wanted it suppressed up until 2001; it's only a college thesis for goodness sakes. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This article indicates it's copyrighted as does this one. Please note that copyright is a completely different issue from suppression; the thesis can now be read by the public, but it can't be put up on the Internet by anyone without Hillary's permission, which she hasn't given. Of course the Internet has copyright violations everywhere, including on this, but WP is very strict in this regard; the WP policy I quoted above prevents us from linking to copyrighted TV broadcasts on YouTube, for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also,wouldn't this site be sued if it was infringing a copyright? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It could be, it just hasn't been yet. Again, the Internet has copyright violations everywhere (YouTube, hundreds of lyrics sites, zillions of copied photos, etc.). WP, on the other hand, is fanatical about not allowing copyright violations, which you will know if you've ever had to go through the misery of uploading fair use images. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis See ref #6, and that WP article is probably where expansion on the topic belongs... and with the political season heating up as it is, I'm sure more sources and commentary will be flying about soon. Ronabop (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider these aspects:

It's absurd to link to Clinton's copyrighted books and not her college thesis for which copyright restrictions are dubious at best. The thesis likely belongs to Wellesley and they have not used the word "copyright".
A non-censored encyclopedia does not allow the very public subject of a BLP to dictate which of her written works can be linked to.
There is no evidence copyright protection really exists and there is evidence to the contrary. The Clintons requested Wellesley to suppress the thesis; if the thesis has copyright protection, they would have demanded the suppression.
Since the thesis has already been released to the "public" (at the college), then it is Orwellian madness to only allow that small % of the public who can travel to Wellesley to read it.
The thesis is absolutely benign; if you read it, I think you'll agree that the whole discussion about copyright protection is just overblown sensitivity (notice I did not say paranoia :)) to the issue of copyright.
Ref.#6 has no real authority behind it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your points are all confused. We don't link to bootleg, scanned-in copies of her autobiography Living History on the Internet, we simply give a citation to Living History (its name, publisher, year, ISBN, etc.) If you want to read Living History, you have to buy it or go to a library and read it there. Same principle applies with the thesis, except that it's not for sale and there's only one library that has it. As for copyright, please see this story again: "Of course, as Wellesley pointed out, it's the author, not the college, who holds the copyright." And whether the thesis is benign or not has no relevance to the copyright issues. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have convinced me on the technical aspects; Good source. But I still think an online encyclopedia should push the envelope when it comes to providing best available content especially when (as your source says) the author is not claiming copyright jurisdiction. You have to admit there is no real litigation risk in providing a link. There are the other issues of reliable source and ethical considerations but if no one else thinks our readers should have this access to a scanned reference (as they do in many other articles) then there is no point in discussing the RS and ethical matters. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't understand how linking to an official online copy (e.g., one at Wellesley) would be a violation of copyright, one does not have to specify "copyright" in order to own a copyright. "Absence of a copyright notice does not mean that the work is not covered by copyright. The creator of an original work instantaneously possesses its copyright when that work is created through "mental labor" and "fixed" in tangible form. Thus, a natural copyright exists from the time a work is invented or created, regardless of whether it has been registered with a particular Copyright Office." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Zzalzzal (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

An official online version from Wellesley would mean HRC approval and would be ok to link to. What's under discussion is a covert photocopy somebody made, scanned in, and put up on a private website unaffiliated with HRC or Wellesley. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The movie

Shouldn't "Hillary: The movie" be mentioned? It it can be mentioned without agreeing with it. Contralya (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In the campaign article, at most. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's more notable as a failed attempt to skirt political advertising laws than as an actual film. It is unlikely that it will be remembered at all in a few months so it shouldn't be given any undue weight. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Betting Line

Does anyone else think it would be a fun and informative link to provide in the articles of the candidates? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody in the U.S. presidential campaign world pays much attention to book betting lines. However, some of them do track the electronic markets, which are somewhat similar; the TPM Election Central site, for instance, includes the current Intrade numbers for each party after its survey of current polls. There's sometimes a theory about that "the people" are wiser than "the experts" and that electronic markets have better predictive power than what the pollsters or pundits are saying, but from my experience looking at these things during the 2004 and 2008 elections, that hasn't been true at all. In other words, the electronic markets have been just trailing indicators of results, polls, and pundit conventional wisdom. So that's a long way of saying, no. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c "Senate Temporary Committee Chairs". University of Michigan Documents Center. 2001-05-24. Retrieved 2007-05-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Jeff Gerth, Don Van Natta, Jr. (2007-05-29). "Hillary's War". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 2007-05-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ ^a ^b "Committees". Official Senate web site. Retrieved 2007-09-27. Cite error: The named reference "hccom" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[umich-1] "Senate Temporary Committee Chairs". University of Michigan Documents Center. 2001-05-24. Retrieved 2007-05-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[hwar-2] Jeff Gerth, Don Van Natta, Jr. (2007-05-29). "Hillary's War". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 2007-05-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[hccom-3] "Committees". Official Senate web site. Retrieved 2007-09-27. Cite error: The named reference "hccom" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]