Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hillary Clinton: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:48, 23 April 2008 editCrazyChemGuy (talk | contribs)Rollbackers3,759 editsm Reverted edits by 71.62.50.187 (talk) to last version by Tvoz← Previous edit Revision as of 01:28, 23 April 2008 edit undoOttava Rima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,327 edits →Article lengthNext edit →
Line 307: Line 307:


::I think all the candidate BLPs are just fine from a size perspective - even with images, the footprint isn't large for a web page. I have noticed that their popularity (presumably) introduces significant latency when browsing to them that is not evident in other articles. It is also possible that the heavy use of templates and JavaScript tools is having an effect. -- ] (]) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC) ::I think all the candidate BLPs are just fine from a size perspective - even with images, the footprint isn't large for a web page. I have noticed that their popularity (presumably) introduces significant latency when browsing to them that is not evident in other articles. It is also possible that the heavy use of templates and JavaScript tools is having an effect. -- ] (]) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

::His tool is obviously wrong, because the text entry into Wiki says its 65k. Furthermore, the guideline clearly says 50k is the upper most. There is too much in this article and it is not encyclopedic. Stop trying to dance around the MoS. There is way too much and it doesn't belong. ] (]) 01:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


== WWE Appearance == == WWE Appearance ==

Revision as of 01:28, 23 April 2008

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillary Clinton article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50Auto-archiving period: 5 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconU.S. Congress Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is about one (or many) person(s).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIllinois High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChicago Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNew York (state)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Good articleHillary Clinton has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 7, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 21, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
February 28, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Was there a dispute about what the article title should be? A1: Yes. From the early days on it was "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but over the years there were many formal requests for moves to change it to "Hillary Clinton". Discussions found no consensus on the article name until June 2015, when one found consensus and the article was moved to its current title. See the "This page was previously nominated to be moved" box elsewhere on this page for full details and links to the discussions – note some have to be revealed under the "Older discussions" link. There are strong feelings on both sides and discussions get progressively longer and more heated. Q2: The section on her 2016 presidential campaign leaves out some important things that have happened. What gives? A2: The main article is tight on space and the presidential campaign section is intentionally brief and kept to what is biographically most relevant. The daughter article Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 has a much fuller treatment of the campaign and is where the greatest level of detail should go, especially anything describing the day-to-day, to-and-fro, ups-and-downs of a campaign. Q3: This article is POV! It's biased {for, against} her! It reads like it was written by {her PR team, Republican hatchet men}! A3: Complaints of bias are taken very seriously, but must be accompanied by specific areas of concern or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements do not help editors. Edits that add {{pov}} tags without providing a detailed explanation on the talk page will likely be reverted. Q4: Where is the article or section that lists her controversies? A4: There isn't one. All controversial material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article (including sometimes in Notes or footnotes) and in the various daughter articles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism and also raises significant WP:BLP concerns. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment – see here – and the same was done for other politicians' articles, including all the 2012 and 2016 candidates. This approach was also confirmed by the results of this AfD and this AfD. Q5: Something in the lead section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{citation needed}} tag on it. A5: This article, like many others on Misplaced Pages, uses the approach of no citations in the lead section, as everything in the lead should be found in the body of the article, along with its citation. See guideline: MOS:LEADCITE.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillary Clinton article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50Auto-archiving period: 5 days 

Information does not make sense:

"Hillary Clinton made culturally dismissive remarks about Tammy Wynette and baking cookies and having teas during the campaign that were ill-considered by her own admission."

I'm new here, and although I think it would probably be common sense to delete it, I figured I'd ask permission first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logabob (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't even think about deleting it, these are two of the most (in)famous remarks she's ever made ... there are lengthy footnotes for both of them, that explain them in more detail. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wasted Time: Logabob is right,I think. Also, the entire first paragraph in that section has nothing at all to do with when she was First Lady. All of that should go in a different section if it belongs in the article at all. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed the non-First Lady stuff that took place before she became First Lady. If it's thought to be relevant it should certainly go in another section. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the wording a bit on the Tammy Wynette and baking cookies/having teas mentions, because they were perhaps a bit mysterious. Again, the footnotes give the full story on them. They were quite notable during the campaign. The idea that these remarks, and the Gennifer Flowers scandal, should just be removed from the article completely is ludicrous. They were crucial in first defining Hillary Clinton to the American public, and are covered in all biographies of Hillary, including her own autobiography. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a "1992 presidential campaign" section to include the above material, separate from "Role as First Lady". (They used to be together because the campaign incidents foretold many of the difficulties she would have as First Lady. But I can see the rationale for splitting them.) I still have "1992 presidential campaign" underneath the top-level "First Lady of the United States", even though obviously it precedes that; this is an artifice that is used in many political articles, to avoid having too many shortish top-level sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And whatever the questions here, mass deletion of historically important material is not the answer. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I've moved "1992 presidential campaign" out of the FL US section and into the preceding Arkansas section. It avoids the above artifice, and has some advantages with respect to how the images are used. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. That's a big improvement overall,istm. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, no thanks to you. What you did, deleting a big swath of material just because you don't think it's included in the right section, is how articles get wrecked. If no one has the article on their watchlist, the bad edit never gets seen, and the material gets lost. I've seen that it's happened in other articles, when I trace through the past history. You continue to be a disruptive editor who makes no useful contribution to this project. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Face facts: the material was not in the right section as you yourself have confirmed by putting it somewhere else. If the article managers/controllers were doing a good job in the first place, then less actives like Logabob wouldn't need to state the obvious and then wouldn't have their concerns summarily ignored/dismissed thus requiring people like me to do something. If I had not done anything then the article would not have been improved. Rather than stalk my individual edits, I encourage you to take seriously the concerns brought up, especially by the less obsessed editors, and then I won't have to step in to help get their quite legitimate concerns taken seriously. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
In terms of wrecking this article, you make no sense at all because you yourself have chosen to continue to leave out of this article the exact same "big swath of material" which you criticize me for deleting. Obviously this article is better without that chunk of material so my deletion did,in fact,improve this article. I have similar feelings towards you in the sense that I feel that obsessive article controllers/watchers are the single most disruptive influence on this encyclopedia because of the vast numbers of would be editors who are discouraged from participating in the project. Although the article might be passable it will never achieve the level of readability, succinctness and comprehensiveness that it could if there were more editors making less edits each. Having said that, I know you have good intentions and do not mean to be disruptive, therefore, I had no plans to mention my opinion in this regard...but, since you call me by that name, I'll just say that the feeling is mutual. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Your last remark I do not understand — I have not left the same material out, indeed I restored it. Specifically, you with this edit deleted all the material on the 1992 campaign. This is what I am criticizing you for. Regardless of which section it belonged in, it needs to be in the article. I with this sequence of edits restored the 1992 campaign material, but into a different section. If you had merely discussed your concern with what section it belonged in, I would have no quarrel with you. But your deleting of all of it was completely without merit. And your bringing User:Logabob into it is a red herring, because he or she was only concerned about one small phrase in the 1992 campaign material, not the whole thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My rejection of User:Logabob's proposal to delete "baking cookies and having teas" was because that step was completely unwarranted and it was clear that user had not bothered to read the footnotes about it. That said, upon looking at it again, I realized that to someone who wasn't already familiar with these remarks, the wording was so terse as to be a bit mysterious. Thus I have expanded the main text wording to hopefully make that better. Yes, I should have seen this the first time around and made the change then, at the time I responded to Logabob. My bad for not doing so. But this again does not warrant you deleting all of the campaign material, including Gennifer Flowers, 60 Minutes, conservative attacks, and so on. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no desire to continue these quarrels with you. But it is often hard to believe you are genuinely interested in article issues; you just seem to latch onto whatever complaints or comments other editors have. For instance, in the past you wanted to amplify the coverage of the Lewinsky scandal here, including renaming it and adding explicit "Bill and Monica cigar" descriptions. Yet now, you want to remove all mention of Gennifer Flowers from the article. How do we reconcile these positions? Wasted Time R (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a good question,WastedTime. It's only my opinion, but I think the cigar event was so extreme,perverse(to many),and,yes,humorous(to many), as well as being quite peculiar to the Clinton/Lewinsky liason (what other famous person in history has been caught doing this particular thing?), that it became/is historical and encyclopedic and will be recounted long into the future just as Catherine the Great's beastiality with horses. More importantly, it is an event documented by an official U.S. government inquiry and reported by many Reliable Sources. On the other hand, what Hillary said about the Gennifer Flowers event was just a simple and shallow deflection/reaction which does not seem to me to be encyclopedic at all.Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It's your right to have that opinion, but Hillary's biographers don't share it. For example, Gil Troy's bio of her gives 24 pages to the 1992 campaign, including 4 pages to the 60 Minutes joint interview regarding the Gennifer Flowers sex scandal. He comments on the irony of Hillary having to play loyal wife rather than extoll her own accomplishments, and says the joint appearance is crediting with rescuing Bill's campaign. He doesn't mention the cigar business at all in the Lewinsky scandal part of the bio, as far as I can tell. The Gerth/Van Natta Jr. bio of her gives 25 pages to the 1992 campaign, including 3 pages to the 60 Minutes/Flowers episode. They say the interview defused the scandal, but Hillary created a "firestorm" with her Tammy Wynette remarks at the same time. They don't mention the cigar business at all either, from what I could see. The Joyce Milton bio gives 4 pages to the 60 Minutes/Flowers episode, and says that Hillary was more poised than Bill during it. So I think the importance of Hillary's role in these 1992 campaign events is pretty well established by how her biographers treat it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And for what it's worth, I actually think that the cigar business and the other explicit descriptions given of the Bill-Monica relationship do merit coverage in Misplaced Pages. It was a unique aspect of this scandal that all this explicitness came out over mainstream news venues and in government documents; many commentators talked about how the Starr Report approached soft porn. But the inclusion should be in the Lewinsky scandal or Starr Report articles, not here, for the obvious reason that those are the articles that directly cover the Bill-Monica goings on. Hillary wasn't a party to these activities. What goes in this article is how Hillary reacted to the Lewinsky scandal, the Flowers episode, and so forth. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What I find most interesting about the inclusion of this "Baking Cookies/Tammy Wynette" information is the timing. Per Misplaced Pages Guidelines, I definitely want to assume "Good Faith." But, I'm a little unclear on what would constitute "Good Faith" here. The Tammy Wynette comment was made over, what, 15 years ago? So, why is it all of the sudden a subject of MASS importance of some to have included in HRC's biographical page? I guess that all these "Good Faith" edits adding any and every questionable thing Bill or Hillary Clinton has ever said or done are just "Good Faith" attempts at making their articles as complete as possible. And, since everything is done "in good faith" they couldn't possible have anything to do with any heated primary election that has renewed a great interest in 15 year old comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Ways (talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been in the article all along — see this version from March 2007 for example. Very recently, one editor didn't understand the wording, another editor unjustifiably took it out completely, and I restored it with some better wording. Has absolutely nothing to do with current politics at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll confirm that. And the Tammy Wynette/baking cookies comments are certainly appropriate here - indeed it would be very odd for it not to be in this biography - those comments are emblematic of her relationship with critics at that time. And it's not necessarily the case that they accrue poorly to her - Tammy's feelings may have been hurt, but Hillary was making an important point about herself. The cigar story has nothing whatever to do with Hillary, and couldn't be more inappropriate for her biography. Adding it is the edit that ought to be scrutinized for motivation, not Tammy. Tvoz |talk 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
WastedTime agrees with me that the cigar story merits coverage on Misplaced Pages. The reasons I think it belongs here are A: because the Lewinsky Scandal section is here, and B: Hillary's passive/defensive acceptance of Bill's sexual behavior, over decades, fits the classic definition of "co-dependent"; with the widely publicized cigar incident showing the extent of the behavior she,herself, is/was willing to accept. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As has been said repeatedly, the Lewinsky scandal section here only deals with it as it pertains to HRC, not all aspects, so reason A is bogus. And it's great that you have theory B, but I haven't seen any of her biographers share it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding B: It's (co-dependent) not a description I made up ,and I'd say it's a more obvious description than saying that she is "polarizing". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh stop this pop psychologizing already. You don't know a damn thing about her private life and your continual harping on it is irritating, inappropriate, and has no place here, and you've been told this many times. At this point, by bringing it up again, I think you are being deliberately disruptive. Tvoz |talk 01:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
We do in fact mention briefly the codependence possibility: "... others criticized her as being an enabler to her husband's indiscretions ..." where "enabler" is underlinked to the codependence article. Until we can mind-read her and Bill, it's hard to go much further. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and the "baking cookies" remark got a new lease on life when Obama brought it up at the debate the other night (pointing to the continuing irony that many of the charges against him in '08 are similar to charges made against the Clintons in '92). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Feature this article

I think this article should be featured. Anyone agree? QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Every amoeba is more fantastic and perfect than this or any article. Should each of them be featured on a list? Just concentrate on getting something done rather than patting anybody's back. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think this article should be a featured article on the main page. It's not about patting backs - it's about showing good articles on the main page. That also helps bring massive amounts of edits quickly improving articles ... so lets add it! Munchmuchmunch? (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I never read the main page cause it's boring. I'd like to see how much time people spend on the main page. Lots of people already try to edit this article but the new edits are quickly buried in controller(s) quicksand, e.g., so there's no point at all in frustrating more attempted editors. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mr.grantevans2, I agree ... simultaneously funny and sad. I've mostly followed the drama in the shadows; noticing the facade of those who pontificate neutrality. Oxfordden (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Handling of senior thesis matter

new edits are quickly buried in controller(s) quicksand, e.g., Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That edit was backed out because the matter in question was already included in the article. In talk page conversation I told the editor where it was, and the editor was satisified. See here, here and here. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A link is not the same as article inclusion. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The matter is both included in the article and linked to. In this article: "Rodham returned to Wellesley, and wrote her senior thesis about the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky under Professor Schechter (which, years later while she was First Lady, was suppressed at White House request and became the subject of speculation)." And underneath this is a link to the Hillary Rodham senior thesis article. What more do you want? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wasted Time R ... I mean no disrepect, but, have you thought about recusing yourself from editing the Hillary page since you have supported her in the past? (cf: http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d) ...Oxfordden (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Attracted National Attention in 1969?

What do you mean, she "...attracted national attention in 1969 when she delivered an address as the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College..."

She did? Well where is the proof? Hmm, I was a teenager in 1969 and I sure don't remember this 'national attention'; do you?

Cite the 1969 media sources, please, to prove that this was 'national attention'. Rather than just something picked up by the local Massachusetts media.

And "first student to speak at commencement" at Wellesley? I mean, come on, commencement is all about students! Of course students would have been allowed to speak at a commencement ceremony! This doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do remember it - I was in college in New York City in 1969 and I remember the flak about a Wellesley student dissing Brooke at graduation. But then Life magazine was big in my house. Tvoz |talk 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz, please - you're insulting the intelligence of others following these threads in silence... Oxfordden (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Oxfordden, for insinuating that I am not telling the truth. As a matter of fact I do remember reading about a Wellesley student who spoke at graduation and was critical of Brooke who was also speaking at the exercises. It was talked about - it was a female student (of course it was at an all-women college or else she wouldn't likely have been giving a speech at all - yes, that's how it was in 1969), he was the only black Senator, albeit a Republican., and she was criticizing him in his presence. I was extremely politically aware in 1969, I was a woman in college (co-ed), and in those days, this was newsworthy stuff. I may have read about it in Life magazine which in fact my parents were charter subscribers to and it was always in the house or I may have read it elsewhere or saw a story on tv news. I don't remember which. And of course I don't recall the specifics that the woman's name was Hillary Rodham, nor did I say that I did. But I remember the incident. You can say that I'm insulting your intelligence, but in fact you're insulting me. So believe what you want - I don't really care. Tvoz |talk 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is how the body of the article explains it:

Stemming from the demands of some students, she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address. Her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes. She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement; she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.

The style of the article is that footnotes aren't used in the lead section, as the lead just summarizes material present in the body of the article, and the footnotes are all there in the body (as you can see). As for national atttention, Life magazine was definitely national and very widely read and influential at the time. The Irv Kupcinet show was not as well known across the nation, but was syndicated to up to 70 stations, so she gained additional national exposure from it as well. As for "first student to speak", as the article body makes clear, she was the first to deliver the commencement address; you are likely right that other students probably made introductory remarks, presentations of class gifts, etc., before her.

But I agree the lead section language wasn't clear on the second point, so I've now changed it to: ... Hillary Rodham attracted national attention in 1969 for her remarks as the first student to deliver the commencement address at Wellesley College. Better, I hope. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also added a direct cite to the Life issue in question (June 20, 1969, article title "The Class of '69"). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Leading Candidate or Candidate?

I heard somewhere that there as a war going on about whether she should be refered to as leading candidate or just candidate. Currently it is on just candidate. Which one do you think it should be?

Non-Biased facts:

Leading: -She is in the top two -She should get her Florida and Michigan Delegates -There is talk about a re-election in Florida -She is ahead on the polls in pensylvania -She is heavily attacked, giving her publicity -It could not only be used as first place, but with power. Like in the fact she is powerful

Candidate -She isn't frontrunner -Her chances of winning are slim -"Leading" makes her look powerful -There is no way she can get her Florida and Michigan delegates -She is the weaker candidate -Shye can't raise enough money

PLEASE HELP WITH FORMATTING!

At this point the whole 'issue' has become troll bait. No "leading". The Obama article doesn't use it either, anymore. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I took out the word Protestant from info box. In general just the word Christian is enough. This also matches Obama's and McCain's articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax returns

Are details of Hillary Clinton's tax returns really notable enough to be included in her BLP? There is certainly an argument for covering them in the campaign article, but I are they notable enough in the context of a summary of her entire life? I find this detail hard to reconcile with WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This article mentions them in context of tracing the Clintons' financial well-being, which is mentioned several times throughout the course of this biographical article. The Clintons' relatively low incomes in the 1970s were responsible for their Whitewater investment and her cattle futures trading, both of which would have unexpected outcomes. There's a quote from Bill that I'd like to include if I can verify it, that the Clintons were the poorest couple to enter the White House in over a hundred years. Subsequently, things have changed, and after leaving the White House the couple (primarily him) has made a ton of money. This is all legitimate biographical description, and it's in that context that the tax returns are mentioned. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Clinton's admission ... that her ... statements ... were mistaken ...

Under "Presidential campaign of 2008" it says : Clinton's admission in late March that her campaign statements about having been under hostile fire from snipers during a 1996 visit to U.S. troops at Tuzla Air Base in Bosnia-Herzegovina were mistaken ....

Who the hell mistook her statement ?? Wasn`t that a clear and unmistakable statement ?? Only in Misplaced Pages !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.70.49 (talk • contribs)

And "only in Misplaced Pages" could someone so misunderstand: mistaken as in I made a mistake. See the reference. Tvoz |talk 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
her ... statements ... were mistaken... By whom?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.93.144 (talk • contribs)
Did you read the above response and the title of the source article? No one said that other people mistook her comments. She said she made a mistake. That is a completely comprehensible use of the word "mistaken". Tvoz |talk 05:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I was not talking about the the reference, I was talking about Wikipedias text !
Whereas the reference says "she made a mistake", Misplaced Pages says "her ... statements ... were mistaken" , thereby introducing the ambiguity that her statements e.g. were mistaken by the audience as being truthful , or whatever ...).
Why use an ambiguous phrase and bury the truth in a reference ??
(And be assured, I did read the reference before my first comment! But the reference is not the point, Wikipedias ambiguous text is.)
I agree with Tvoz that you're willfully misinterpreting 'were mistaken', but since we aim to please around here, I've changed it to 'were incorrect'. I've also made Paisan30's last edit to the same subject more concise; we're in danger of giving this episode undue weight at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the correction Wasted Time, it`s much more precise now. Thanks.

Hillary's eye colour is fake: she wears blue contact lenses

Ok, those aren't my harsh words, they are what I read in the following article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/19/wuspols219.xml Anyway, I searched Google because I found it a bit hard to believe. On a last ditch effort I checked this page to see if it were true or not. I'm still not sure. The source is Camille Paglia but just because it's in print doesn't mean I am going to believe it outright. Anyway, if this is true that Sen. Clinton wears color contacts, I would like to know if there is any reason she has given why (and when) she started doing so. It's trivial, I know, but I think a lot of people would be fascinated by this. Full disclosure: I do not support Sen. Clinton for president. But, unlike Ms. Paglia, I don't find this a scandalous aspect of her character or relevant other than just being an interesting factoid--if true--sort of like I find it interesting which hollywood actors are vegetarians (or else it's a possible slander-rumor to be debunked--yes, I know that's not what Misplaced Pages is for!--which might make an interesting note for Paglia's page if she has one). Well, anyway, if anyone has any comment, I'd like to have it. --210.172.229.198 (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a comment. "Trivial" doesn't really capture it. We're neither here to debunk nor spread rumors, and this kind of item has no place in an encyclopedia even if true, so I think we should just move on now. Take it to the attack-Hillary blogs - I'm sure you'll find a receptive audience. Tvoz |talk 05:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Sorry you feel that way about me. I'm disappointed but hope if you hear me out you will tone-down your response. In order to not "attack" her I posted in this discussion first. I did not wontonly edit the article. I hope in the future you will be more civil. I have a lot of respect for wikipedia and if you seriously think I am attacking her with my suggested addition, then why don't you just remove my comment here altogether? I suspect the reason is because, despite your words, you know I am not attacking her--and I appreciate that at least. Like I said, it was an interesting piece of trivia, in my opinion. Sorry that upset you. I hope I can convince you that my intentions are not sinister. If it were about Obama, or really any public figure as visible as Sen. Clinton, I would feel the same way. Not everyone is a partisan out to get someone; just some of us are intrigued by political trivia. It is interesting to me when any public figure alters their appearence or has a unique foible. Please be objective. I'm willing to accept if it is too trivial for this article. Also, I thought at the very least it would be worth giving a heads-up here if it were false because probably someone who IS partisan will try to add it to her article. I know this page gets slandered a lot. I'm willing to dismiss your belligerence as a consequence of that. If you are a regular editor of this article keeping it free from vandalism, then as a Democrat, I thank you. Also, sorry for the anonomous IP. I'm not at home and I don't want to log-in. Partly because I don't want someone to vandalize ME. PS Preference for one candidate does not necessarily preclude admiration or respect for the other.

You know, nevermind. I'm sorry I even brought it up. Let's just forget the whole thing. It's not worth it. Peace?
I don't feel any way about you - I didn't comment on you or your motivations, just on the content of the item you were asking about. Whether Hillary Clinton wears blue contact lenses or not is unencyclopedic, and seems to me to be a hop-skip-and-a-jump from being a bogus accusation of untruthfulness on her part. The reason I suggest taking it to the Hillary-attack blogs is that many of them have lower standards to meet than Misplaced Pages does in order to have material posted, and they may be willing to explore this with you. So sure, peace, and let's move on. Tvoz |talk 07:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, I wouldn't expect an objective analysis from an attack blog. I'm sure you would not either. Therefore I think your suggestion is sarcastic and is in fact a comment on me and my motivations. If that is not what you intended, then I will take you for what you intended to say rather than what you seemed to say. Otherwise, please just be less sarcastic. Finally, if I inadvertently insulted you or offended you or otherwise got on your bad side, please accept my apology. Anyway, I do agree with you, though, after thinking about it. I also heard she colors her hair but just about everyone does and that's not considered unusual. For some reason, the eye color thing just struck me. Then I remembered she was on TV wearing glasses and has worn glasses before so it would be pretty improbable for her to wear color contacts. But it is a shocking jab accusation to throw out there by Paglia and totally undermines her objectivity. Again, sorry I brought it up (and I am not being sarcastic). Thanks for the work on this article. I don't like all the BS that people say about her on the web and I refer to this article a lot. Delete this entire section if you feel it's for the best (you can do that right?).
Tvoz, I disagree. If she is a long time wearer of blue contact lenses, we should mention it like how we would mention someone who always wore a monocle. 99.233.20.151 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The article does discuss her fashion changes while First Lady, including the many different hairstyles, because that was highly visible and much commented upon at the time. This contacts thing is neither. And Camille Paglia, while an important voice for our time (or somesuch cliché), is not a reliable source for facts like these. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton was fired from her first job 'because she was a liar.'

This is a very important fact that is missing from Senator Clinton's entry.

In an interview of her former employer, Attorney Jerry Zeifman, he reveals that he fired Hillary for being "an unethical and dishonest lawyer." A full quote from the cited article appears below.

Source:

JaymzLawOne (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen this before. There aren't to my knowledge any mainstream, WP:RS sources that have bought into Zeifman's story. In fact, in other contexts Zeifman has admitted he didn't fire Rodham, as he didn't have the power to; he just processed her termination papers, when the committee wrapped up work after Nixon resigned. See for Media Matters' references on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

height

How tall is she? I can't find the information anywhere in this article, and the reference at Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates is to a forum -- perhaps the worst reference I've seen on Misplaced Pages in years. --M@rēino 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Article length

This article is 15k above the recommended limit for text in an article. Much of the information that is "main articled" at the top is duplicate and excessive, and should follow summary guidelines. There is also far too much trivia and other things that are only notable because she is notable. Information is supposed to verify her important if its on her page, not viceversa. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Per the User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js page size tool, this article is 59 kB (9180 words) readable prose size. The word count fits well within the WP:SIZE "6,000 to 10,000 words" guideline and the prose size fits below WP:SIZE's table entry of "> 60 KB should probably divide up". As for "things that are only notable because she is notable", well yes to some degree: almost nobody's childhood and schooling are notable by themselves, but every biography includes them because the illuminate the background and evolution of the person who later becomes notable. (And Hillary Clinton's early years are more notable than most, for example once being a Republican, the Wellesley commencement speech, and so forth.) Following what this comment seems to suggest, every "Early life" section in Misplaced Pages could be summarily deleted. That makes no sense. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think all the candidate BLPs are just fine from a size perspective - even with images, the footprint isn't large for a web page. I have noticed that their popularity (presumably) introduces significant latency when browsing to them that is not evident in other articles. It is also possible that the heavy use of templates and JavaScript tools is having an effect. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
His tool is obviously wrong, because the text entry into Wiki says its 65k. Furthermore, the guideline clearly says 50k is the upper most. There is too much in this article and it is not encyclopedic. Stop trying to dance around the MoS. There is way too much and it doesn't belong. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WWE Appearance

Don't want to add anything to the article as it may be seen as irrelevant, however, is it worth mentioning her "wrestling match" against Barack Obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazzeee (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll refer you to a similar discussion here: Talk:Barack_Obama#WWE. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I feared as much as not adding it to the article is concerned, thanks for that. --Вlazzeee 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Categories: