Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tvoz (talk | contribs) at 23:56, 10 October 2007 (→Featured Article Task Force: strike out again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Template:Activepolitician

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This 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. Illinois High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance 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. Biography: Politics and Government This 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 This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Hillary 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 Date Process Result May 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 14, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted June 7, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal opinions about the article's subject. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal opinions about the article's subject at the Reference desk.

Template:Maintained

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50

Comments from GA review for FAC

The following comments need to be addressed/debated before the article goes to FAC:

• MAJOR: Lead section talk about the 'polarization' of opinion amongst people about Hillary Clinton

Now added back to intro, with new 'Cultural and political image' section to back it up. Wasted Time R 02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• MINOR: Her parents encouraged her to pursue the career of her choice." - add a phrase letting the readers know that this was not a standard practice of that era

Whether it was a common practice of the area or not, I would say that it's important to her life whether her parents encouraged her or not. I don't see how it matters whether it was common or not, it should still be left in.--71.65.202.41 18:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• MINOR: Explanation for the event - "She was audibly booed in an audience of New York firefighters and police officers during her on-stage appearance at The Concert for New York City on October 20, 2001."
  --Kalyan 12:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd remove the booing unless we can find reliable sources that actually explain it. Otherwise it is unclear or speculative. Tvoz |talk 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've found an additional good source (the Gerth & Van Natta book) for the booing and why it happened, and have expanded the footnote on this accordingly. Wasted Time R 03:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the book, but is this their speculation about what might have been the reason for the booing or did they provide some kind of evidence like interviews with booers? I've been looking for contemporaneous news reports with explanations, but haven't yet come up with any - I'd like to supplement the footnote with that. Unless Gerth & Van Natta have more than just their own theory, that is. Tvoz |talk 03:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

They give this as the source for Hillary's comment on it, but no source for their causes. I was watching the concert on TV at the time, and I would say it was half G-VN's reasons, half just plain visceral dislike of her. Wasted Time R 03:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so was I - and I pretty much agree - but if we're including this incident at all (and I'm not really sure why we are), I wish we had something more than speculation. It's not a big deal though. Tvoz |talk 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Gave this some more thought and reading it again the booing incident stuck out to me as being without context - I've added some material to the 2000senate campaign about endorsements, which ties into the subsequent comments about police & firefighters. Also added some additional refs and cleaned up a bunch of other refs for cite style. Tvoz |talk 07:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

FA Class

Is this article good enough to be nominated? Very well sourced, well written and with the controversy page merged. This, and the Obama article, are the best current political candidate articles that I have seen on Misplaced Pages. Turtlescrubber 04:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the article would be immediately called out for a few flaws:

• a number of references need to be put into {{cite}} format (I'm not volunteering, I hate working with that format)
• 'First Lady' section is lengthy, needs subsections (I've been pondering the best way)
• 'Political positions' section doesn't really summarize the split-out article (I don't think it needs to personally, but FA reviewers will probably go by the book)

In addition, I still wish the article directly addressed the polarizing role HRC has played in the national stage, certainly in the 1990s ... maybe something akin to the Barack_Obama#Cultural_and_political_image section ... needs research work to support it however ... Wasted Time R 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on the {{cite}} format Tvoz |talk 23:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've now added the 'polarizing' section I've had in mind; it's called 'Cultural and political image', similar to Barack_Obama#Cultural_and_political_image but with a bit of Public perception of George W. Bush in it as well. Wasted Time R 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's now a candidate. Leave comments at the link indicated in the box at the top of this page. Wasted Time R 03:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Title

I'm sure that this had be discussed before, but could someone tell me why the article's title isn't Hillary Clinton as she is widely known in the media? CG 20:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_5#Requested_move. Wasted Time R 20:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Clinton Article

Why isn't there a "Controversies" section in the Hillary Clinton article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.234.198 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the editors believe that such a section — or separate article, as it would have to be given length considerations — is a violation of the WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism guidelines. Instead, all controversial material is integrated into the Hillary Clinton article and subarticles in their normal places. Thus, the Arkansas years and First Lady sections of this article have discussions of her role in Whitewater, the article on the 2000 Senate campaign describes the Suha Arafat episode, and so forth. Wasted Time R 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Wasted Time R 12:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters Ties?

On August 4th 2007, Hillary Clinton made a **claim** during a speech at the YearlyKos Convention that she helped start Media Matters. Here is a YouTube video of that speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM Why is this not included in the article? It's certainly worth mentioning. Shadax 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. She says "... institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress." This seems like one of those Al Gore-style exaggerations to me. John Podesta founded Center for American Progress and David Brock founded Media Matters for America. CAP is full of ex-Clintonistas, so it's certainly aligned with the Clintons, and Media Matters has done a lot of critiquing of anti-Clinton (and anti- other Dems) media pieces, so it's also aligned with the Clintons in a way ... but I don't see any evidence that she helped start either outfit, or has contributed money to either. Is there some verification of this apart from what she said? If not, I'm inclined to attribute it to an over-eager attempt to win over a somewhat hostile crowd (the Kossacks are generally not Hillary fans). Wasted Time R 23:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no hard evidence that she helped start Media Matters, and there probably never will be. Nevertheless, she made the **claim** and I think we should include it in the article. It's either that, or completely ignore it and pretend it never happened. Shadax 00:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is Rush Limbaugh and company. I haven't seen any neutral, responsible coverage of this non-issue. We can't and shouldn't include every utterance that anyone makes in this or any article - let's wait and see if this amounts to anything, or what. I haven't seen any evidence that this is at all notable, and it's not even clear that she was specifically saying if she started MM or supported it - this could be simply sloppy speaking. And let's not forget that as for Al Gore, he never said he "invented the internet", but the phrase lives in infamy. Tvoz |talk 03:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I looked further and discovered that the Gerth-Van Natta book has some confirmation and clarification of Hillary's role in these. I've thus added the following to the 'First Term' section in the article, hewing closely to the language G-VN used but also giving an account of the YearlyKos remarks as a cite too:

Looking to establish a "progessive infrastructure" to rival that of American conservatism, Clinton played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress; shared aides with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, founded in 2003; advised and nurtured former Clintons antagonist David Brock's Media Matters for America, created in 2004; and following the 2004 Senate elections successfully pushed new Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid to create a Senate war room to handle daily political messaging.

See what you think. Wasted Time R 03:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This works for me - I slightly stumbled on the "shared aides" clause though - wasn't sure what you meant. Tvoz |talk 05:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"This is Rush Limbaugh and company." No sir, that was a YouTube video of her making the claim. Now, whether or not that claim is true or not is anyone's guess. Regardless, I think it should be included in the article. 71.234.116.68 17:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As indicated above, it is now included. Wasted Time R 17:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Law school section and "Communist sympathies"

"In the late spring of 1971, she began dating Bill Clinton, who was also a law student at Yale. That summer, she interned on child custody cases at the Oakland, California law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which was known for its support of constitutional rights, radical causes, and for the Communist sympathies of some of its partners."

How exactly is the mention of this group's sympathies for some Communists relevant to the article? This seems to me to be an attempt at tying Clinton to a "Communist Sympathizer" group which is a little silly considering she is clearly far from a Communist sympathizer. (And trust me, I'm no fan of Hillary so this isn't a polarized Pro-Hillary defense)

KurtFF8 00:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with this objection - I never noticed that text before. I assume this is Bernstein's comment, but I also don't see the relevance. Does her autobiography talk about this? Does anyone else? Tvoz |talk 03:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Her autobiography mentions working there but glosses over the nature of the firm. (You have to be very careful with Living History, it leaves out or glosses over lots of the good stuff!) Why is it relevant? Robert Treuhaft and his wife Jessica Mitford were significant figures in the history of American Communism. The Bernstein book quotes Treuhaft as saying that at the tim, two of the four partners were communists and the other two tolerated communists. She was working on non-political cases, as far as anyone can tell, but wasn't bothered by the association with them. Back in the early 1990s, Clinton haters tried to use this to paint her as a communist by proximity, which she wasn't. But, it is definitely part of her story: within the space of five years, she worked at one of the most radical law firms in the country and then at one of the most establishment, business/government/crony-connection law firms in the country (Rose). That tells you something about her! That's why it's in here. Wasted Time R 03:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

But looking at my wording, I don't know why I used "sympathies", which is too vague. I've now changed the text to:

That summer, she interned on child custody cases at the Oakland, California law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which was well-known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes; two of its four partners were communists.

I've gone to the small 'c' form since I think they weren't in CPUSA at the time. Wasted Time R 04:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK - Jessica Mitford I've certainly heard of, so that makes more sense to me, although it still seems kind of out of left field, no pun intended. Should it maybe say that the firm had 2 partners who were communists, which has drawn heat for HIllary, with citation? It just seems to be hanging there as if we're supposed to garner some meaning from it. I don't object to including it, but I think it needs explanation. Tvoz |talk 04:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a footnote that includes Barbara Olson's charges in this respect. Wasted Time R 17:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

stop sanitizing her iraq war vote

the levin and byrd amendments are important to help ascertain what her vote was for. stop deleting them or putting them at the bottom. Pkmilitia 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

I didn't delete them, I moved them to a footnote based on the ongoing FAC comment that the 'First term' section was hard to read. It's okay with me that you've moved them back into the main text, but I've put them in parentheses to help the readibility and fixed up the citing. Your charge that I'm "sanitizing" anything is ridiculous: I personally have no issue with her Iraq War Resolution vote and don't care about the Levin and Byrd amendments one way or the other. Wasted Time R 01:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Parenthesis are fine with me. But, taking those sentences out of the main text of the article and putting them at the bottom was improper, especially after we had compromised on this specific part a while back. Pkmilitia 16:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Time to split out Senate into separate article?

Given the way the FAC comments are going, is it time to spin the Senate material off into a separate article, and replace it with a summary section? This is the only way I can see to significantly reduce the article size and number of references right now. The Senate section does seem visually long compared to the others. Precedents for doing this, even for non-presidents, include Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani and Governorship of Mitt Romney. But what to call it? I don't know what the equivalent term to these is for a Senator. Wasted Time R 18:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think we should split this at this time - as you said, that may come to be necessary, but for now this is a major portion of her bio that I think should remain here. Size guidelines don't have to be followed so strictly. As for the references, well, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Again, I don't think we're over-referenced - this one has more than Obama, but she has had a public career for many more years than he has, so that stands to reason. I haven't looked at Reagan. I'll give this one some more thought. Tvoz |talk 21:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you need a word, maybe call it "Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton". Or keep it in the same article.

Better photo?

Anyone have a better photo of her? 7F 23:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Wasted Time R 00:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

==Featured Article Task Force== This is a result of the suggestions to make this article an FA in its present form. Let's work to make this an FA. I propose this schedule.
Task 1: Agree on the sections to be written. (October)
Task 2: Nominate two similar articles that are either FA or good enough to be FA's to be a model. (October)
Task 3: Rewrite or evaluate every section starting with the first and moving to the second only after the first is done. Pay close attention to citations.
Task 4: Review pictures after the section is stable. Pictures should support the article, not vice versa.
Task 5: Review other articles/bio on her and see if we left out anything.
Task 6: (maybe) Consider what the article will be like in 2027 and compare it with what we have.
Task 7: Discuss product with those that made FA comments and see if we addressed their concerns. Then submit for FA and pass with flying colors.

If you oppose this task force, state your name please. 7F 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• support - I support the task force. 7F 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the way it's done - there is an ongoing process discussing the FA status of this article, and specific comments are being responded to. Rather than pre-empting the process, I suggest we continue working with established FA reviewers who have been helpfully commenting, not proposing that the entire article be scrapped which you seem to be doing. Let's let the process go forward. Tvoz |talk 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

7F, you're either a very inexperienced editor or a sock. Either way, I intend to ignore suggestions such as these. Wasted Time R 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A sock of User:Dereks1x almost certainly. Blocking as such. · jersyko talk 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

- :AGF. If one doesn't, like you, one could conclude that you and Tvoz are socks are you post minutes apart and have the exact same opinion. You want to help out or not? I've asked others to join the task force and we will make this a truly great FA, not just a FA in name only. If you are really interested in getting an FA, you'll fix all of the concerns on the FA discussion. I certainly will ask the Task Force to do so. When the Task Force is complete, we will have an unstoppable FA because it consists of all kinds of people, even those with reservations about the FA.7F 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This block is censorship opposed to improvement7F 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Me and Tvoz as socks of one another . . . gee, where have I heard that one before???? Blocked. · jersyko talk 21:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because it always amuses me when a new Dereks1x sock comes around.. I think the reference of "you and Tvoz are socks" was aimed at Wasted R and Tvoz, rather than Jersyko and Tvoz. But it's always good to see that our circle of socks (according to Dereks1x at least) is growing. Welcome to the group, Wasted R! Your decoder ring is in the mail. --Bobblehead 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz gave her real name to the Washington Post. I don't think usually sockpuppets do that. Perhaps the Pattern Recognition Detector needs to be turned down a tad? --Pleasantville 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just in case Pleasantville's comment was aimed at my comment. Sorry, should have been clearer, I don't suspect that Tvoz and Wasted R are socks of each other. I was more responding to Jersyko's comment. Dereks1x's socks have accused myself, Jersyko, and Tvoz of being socks of each other multiple times. --Bobblehead 21:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I think Pleasantville was aiming correctly at 7F - and thanks, P. But logic is usually wasted on Dereks1x and his farm. Bobblehead, I say the more the merrier in our secret oneness. This is so obviously predictable. Tvoz |talk 22:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with improvement. I support improvement. UTAFA 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with improvement, but there is something wrong with block evasion and in cases of block evasion, WP:BAN advocates enforcement by removal of their comments regardless of merit.--Bobblehead 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The material is stricken again - as you know, UTAFA, 7F was blocked because it is a sock account of Dereks1x. Tvoz |talk 23:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• GA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Chicago articles
• Mid-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles