Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Equal treatment in candidate biography articles

It looks like Noroton has identified a number of examples of inappropriate POV/Soapboxing in articles about other people. Some of them really are quite egregious. He would do Wikipedia a great service to remove (or at least heavily trim) those digressions into third persons that partisans put into other politician articles. If Noroton does not get to it, I might make an effort myself to clean some of that up (obviously though, as we've seen here, cleaning up to encyclopedic standards can often meet great resistance from anti-Bio-Subject partisans).Unfortunately, I can't personally improve millions of articles at once, probably not even dozens where the subjects are living persons of high general interst. LotLE×talk 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC) -- From the Talk:Barack Obama page (diff)

One useful way of checking the neutrality of an article is looking at how similar articles are edited. Right now there's a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama (in fact, it's a long, ongoing debate taking up most of the page, but the active section right now is at the Attempt to build consensus on the details section. I looked through this McCain article and the ones on Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani to see how negative information was treated in each, particularly how much information was presented about people associated with the candidate. The debate over on the Obama page is about whether to include any information on people associated with him (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, specifically) and if so, how much information to include about each. My own opinion is that, since there are articles about each of these people and their relationship to the election, we can have a very small amount on each, but we should have just enough so that the reader immediately knows why the person has become controversial in the election. For Bill Ayers, for instance, people should know that he's controversial because he's said to be unrepentant about violence with the Weather Underground. Other opinions are that this description unnecessarily lengthens the article or has nothing to do with Obama or that it's an opinion, not a fact, that he's unrepentant. It would be useful if people interested in this page would participate in the discussion there, because, as the quote I've put at the top of this section shows, editors there may be coming here to make changes.

Here's what I found in looking into negative information in three similar articles, particularly as it relates to people associated with the candidate who have become controversial. I'm re-posting it here for the information of editors who are unlikely to see it at Talk:Barack Obama. Any comments about this comparison as it relates to this article would be useful on this page, of course, and any comments on how the Obama article should treat information on associates would best be posted on that page. Please keep in mind that whatever happens in that discussion may well affect this page, with a good number of editors willing to form a consensus that might force changes here. A centralized discussion on the common points may be best on that page, where it's already started:

• Hilary Rodham Clinton — numerous mentions of various people that put Clinton in a negative light. Regarding people associated in some way with Clinton:
  • The Presidential campaign of 2008 section has three sentences on Norman Hsu, who was certainly less close to Clinton than the Rev. Wright has been to Obama.
  • The same section has several sentences on comments by another Clinton associate who puts the candidate in a bad light: Bill Clinton's controversial comments about race and the campaign. Surely that is worth keeping in the article on Hilary Clinton.
  • The same section has two sentences on Geraldine Ferraro's comments that put the Clinton campaign, and by extension, Hilary Clinton, in a bad light in the eyes of some.
  • Regarding other negative information on Clinton (usually full paragraphs on each thing mentioned), there is the cattle futures contract (in two different places in the article), conflict-of-interest charges in Arkansas regarding the Rose Law Firm; controversy involving her term on the Wal-Mart board of directors; the controversy/investigation on missing legal papers in her East Wing White House office regarding the Whitewater controversy; and Clinton's sniper-fire gaffe during the campaign (a sentence).
• John McCain:
  • Information on Richard Keating (footnotes 84-87; John McCain#House and Senate career, 1982–2000 section: Amount of space: two paragraphs
  • ADDED POINT: The article does not mention the Rev. John C. Hagee whose controversial remarks about Catholics and about the Holocaust caused McCain to disassociated himself from the minister. The article also does not mention McCain's ties to a lobbyist that some suspected was having an affair with him. (Personally, I think the Hagee stuff belongs in that article, in a sentence or two, and a link to the lobbyist controversy article should also be there, but it's a point in favor of the exclusionist side in this discussion that those two people are not mentioned in the article.)
• Rudy Giuliani:
  • Rudy Giuliani#Early life and education: This section opens by telling the reader his father "had trouble holding a job and had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing" and worked as a Mafia enforcer for his brother-in-law who "ran an organized crime operation involved in loan sharking and gambling at a restaurant in Brooklyn." Mind you, this last quote is about Giuliani's uncle.
  • The Mayoral campaigns, 1989, 1993, 1997 section has a subsection called "Appointees as defendants" consisting of a paragraph each on scandals/controversies involving Russell Harding and Bernard Kerik, and the Kerik paragraph is preceded by: "Main article: Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik" Kerik is mentioned in at least two other places in the article. "Post-mayorality" section is one ("Politics" subsection), and the "Family" section, where the last paragraph is a sentence stating that Giuliani is godfather to Kerik's children.
  • Other negative information on Giuliani includes part of the Legal career section, which opens with details his draft deferment in a paragraph; another paragraph is devoted to criticism of his setting up public perp-walks for arrested Wall Street bigwigs and then eventually dropping prosecutions of them. That paragraph is larger than Giuliani's leading the prosecution in one of the biggest Mafia trials in history (perhaps the most important).

Presidential candidates are big boys (and a big girl), and they get tough treatment in the media because they are trying to get a very powerful, very important job. We don't overprotect them on Wikipedia just as the U.S. media and international media don't protect them. The exclusionist side of this discussion appears to want far higher standards for inclusion of information about Obama than we have for Hilary Clinton, John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani. This goes against both Wikipedia practice and policy & guidelines. Noroton (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dropping out

ABC is reporting that she will drop out of the race on Friday at a rally although the word likely is still not convincing enough to mention just yet. Remember yesterday about the report that she would drop out but immediately denied shortly after. But it is a heads up. --JForget 23:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Like you said, remember the bogus AP story yesterday. Reporters get rewarded for scoops; we get paid the same whether we're first or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you didn't get the memo announcing the raise? Tvoz/talk 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! ... by the way, do you or anyone know why MiszaBot has stopped working on this page? No archiving since April, and there are some old threads above ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know but I could archived some of it right now by myself.--JForget 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's better when the bot does it, because it creates an index too. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Looks like the archiver is a separate bot, that has been running, so it should index archive 12 tonight. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to send a message to Misza13 about that matter before I saw that new bot. So I guess we will have to archive manually now. --JForget 23:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've only left a commented out note on our campaign article about the report for now until more media (i.e CNN, CBC, NBC, BBC) will mention it on theirs home page or a real announcement. CTV has also mention of it in their headlines. --JForget 23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't do bots. Tvoz/talk 04:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, Clinton isn't dropping out. She's suspending her campaign; she's no longer running, but she's still a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination (just like Ron Paul is, for the Republican pres nomination). PS- Ya gotta hand it to her & her supporters fighting spirit; already they're pressuring Obama to give her the vice presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Rah-rah deleted**

Don't turn this into a forum. No support messages, no flags, no patriotic flags, no rockets!! guddamit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.201.1.109 (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

New section for campaign to have Clinton Dem candidate despite suspension of campaign

I was considering authoring a short section about the movement among some Hillary Clinton supporters to pressure the DNC to make her the nominee despite her suspending her campaign. If I bring in some good media cites and post it here first, do you think it has a chance of being added? Stanistani (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The creation of an entire section is more appropriate for the campaign article rather than this article. Having not seen the quality of sources in regards to this topic, my comment here should not be taken to mean that the section actually should be created in the campaign article, just that it is not appropriate for this article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the goal of her supporters is to get her name placed in nomination at the convention, and somehow recognize how many delegates she won, rather than having Obama be nominated by acclamation. I agree with Bobblehead that this belongs in the campaign article; once the convention is over, we might add one sentence here describing what her role was in it. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to note somewhere that the television show "All in the Family" in 1973 predicted that the USA would have a black man as President before it would have a woman as President. (Season 4, Episode 6, "Henry's Farewell"). 99.170.12.120 (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in the All in the Family article, but not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin deleted it from All in the Family article (no explanation offered)--it's like 'let's pretend that 35 years ago nobody could see this coming'99.170.12.120 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as very significant. A prediction like this has a 50% chance of becoming correct. I'm sure one could find some other cultural reference from the 1970s that said the reverse. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we edit??

This is supposed to be Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And I can't. Why not?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.64.19 (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Beacuse you don't have an account with WIKIPEDIA. You only have an I.P address, and to keep people from making bad edits they keep people who havn't had an account with them for a few months or so. It's just to help keep out vandals. Make an account if you want to do some editing--  Jrobb525 07:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Four days, not a few months. Tvoz/talk 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed. ffm 14:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, it is all a ruse. I get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.64.19 (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There's only a handful of semi-protected articles like this one. There are over two million articles that you can edit right now, no questions asked. So no, not a ruse. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

When is this super-sensitivity (entitlement) of the HRC Wiki going to end? I would think that most of the vandals have moved on. No? Oxfordden (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's for the admins to decide. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, still a candidate?

Not to upset folks, but isn't Clinton status with the Democratic race, the same as Ron Paul's status in the Republican race? She's suspended her prez campaign (not ended it). Thus she keeps her delegates - Doesn't this mean she's still a candidate for the Dems prez nomination? PS- Yes, I know most sources says she's not a candidate anymore. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well... she suspended her campaign... so it depends on how ridgidly you want to define the term candidate... personally, I think a suspended campaign should count as not being a candidate (I could envision some rare exceptions to this but generally that should be the rule). She has effectively announced that she is no longer running therefore she is no longer a candidate. Otherwise, we could argue that Mike Gravel, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, etc. are still candidates as their names appeared on ballots even after they eneded their campaign. Now if, you want to talk about the definition of the term superdelegate I could really get technical there, that term is so misused it's amazing.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No prob; I just wanted to be sure. PS- I'm still waiting for Donna Brazile to make an endorsement. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference with Ron Paul is that he explicitly has not endorsed McCain, while HRC explicitly did endorse Obama. The suspension status is a technicality due to getting funds to pay off her huge campaign debts. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

millennium project

i propose we take out that she initiated the "millennium project" (see [1]), unless someone has a source. this may be a dup reference to the wh millennium council, which she chaired. the wikilink goes to a un article that doesn't cite her involvement. comments welcome Journalist1983 (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The wlink is clearly wrong. The source for the "Millennium Project" is http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43, which is used a number of times in the article. I've removed the wlink and added the cite. Is this the same as the White House Millennium Council? Good question, have looked a bit, nothing conclusive. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

i started the article on the millenium council; it is the same. there is no "millennium project"' the source you cited is just the WH puffy biowriters writing something when they didn't know the formal name.Journalist1983 (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the text to mention Millennium Evenings, which she hosted under the White House Millennium Council and which is what I think the existing text was making reference to. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We can do that, but to be clear under the auspices of the council she did a myriad of interesting things, and this was one of them.Journalist1983 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So are they running mates now?

I couldn't help wondering that after I hard the news this morning, is Hilary Obama's running mate? Or is it too soon to say? Katana Geldar 22:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not. Don't confuse what you see for show with reality. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote totals

Since the end of the campaign, several editors have tried to add to the lead section some text to the effect that Hillary got the most popular votes in the nomination campaign. While the popular vote totals should be dealt with, the matter gets complicated and should not be in the lead. Instead, I have added to the presidential campaign section this:

Clinton and Obama each received over 17 million votes during the nomination process,[295] with both breaking the previous record.[296]

with the first footnote citing this RealClearPolitics page, which has been the standard reference for discussing the popular vote throughout the campaign. I then added this footnote text:

The popular vote count for a nomination process is unofficial, and meaningless in determining the nominee. It is difficult to come up with precise totals due to some caucus states not reporting popular vote totals and thus having to be estimated. It is further difficult to compare Clinton and Obama's totals, due to only her name having been on the ballot in the Michigan primary.

So in other words, yes, technically more people voted for Hillary in the nomination contest than anyone in history. But no, in contests where they both appeared on the ballot, Hillary did not get more popular votes than Obama. You can play further experiements with these numbers: What if you allocate the "Uncommitted"'s from Michigan to Obama? What if you cut the Michigan and Florida numbers in half, since the delegates were cut in half? What if ... etc. It should be obvious that this is too murky and complicated and potentially misleading an area to try to deal with in the lead section, and that what I have done in the campaign section, or something like it, is the way to go. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

further reading 2008 Hillary book

See new 2008 book on Sen Hillary Clinton, esp about family and ancestors Clinton In This Sign + —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.165.95 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks self-published and not a WP:RS to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Another FA run?

The McCain article's recent promotion to FA made me wonder if this article should be sent through again? In checking the last two FACs for this article the only real complaint was about stability concerns because she was still a candidate for President. Since HRC is no longer a presidential hopeful those concerns seem to be resolved now. A check of the diff between the article after the last FAC and its current state[2] doesn't seem to indicate there having been any major changes to the article, so with the stability concerns removed, I don't see why this article couldn't be FA. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully intend to, but after Obama picks someone (else) for veep, lest people hold out that possibility for future instability. (It's amazing that there were over a dozen opposes to her FAC back in April/May, when she had at best a 20% chance of gaining the nomination, while McCain's FAC just went through with no opposes at all, when he has a 100% chance of gaining the nomination ... go figure.) I also want to revise the presidential campaign section somewhat, as there have been some good accounts and postmortems written that will allow us a bit more of an analytical, less blow-by-blow description than what was written as it was happening. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll hold off the hordes.;) But yes.. I was quite surprised that McCain got FA'd with all the flak this one got for 1(e). Looks like someone finally beat it into the heads of the FA reviewers that just because a section might be modified at a future date it doesn't mean you flag the entire article as unstable. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's one explanation. Tvoz/talk 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation re Tuzla

I believe that the sentence in the article about the Bosnia sniper (below) is overly presumptuous in claiming that this small campaign event undermined both Sen. Clinton's entire "credibility" and "foreign policy expertise"... honestly the woman's been in public service for over 35 years. I recommend reading the actual source itself--the overly critical language is misleading, will come off to some as sexist.

"... 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 not true[282] attracted considerable media attention, and the contradiction risked undermining both her credibility and her claims of foreign policy expertise as First Lady." Random12345678910 05:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's quote the whole thing: "Clinton's admission in late March—following the airing of video—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 not true[282] attracted considerable media attention, and the contradiction risked undermining both her credibility and her claims of foreign policy expertise as First Lady.[283]" Footnote 282 confirms her admission that her campaign statements about Tuzla had been inaccurate, and confirms that in fact this had happened multiple times. Footnote 283 confirms the media attention ("Amid a slew of mocking news reports and replays of the contradictory footage") and the potential damage ("The former First Lady was attacked by Barack Obama for exaggerating her role in foreign policy-making during her husband’s presidency, which she has frequently asserted makes her more qualified to lead than her Democratic rival" and “'When you make a false claim that’s in your prepared remarks, it’s not misspeaking, it’s misleading'” and "the issue threatened to overshadow Mrs Clinton’s attempt to bring voters’ attention back to the faltering economy").

Now, we don't state, as you claim, that this "undermined" her, we say that it "risked undermining" her. Which it surely did. The Tuzla episode happened in the long seven-week gap between primaries, and it would be useful to research whether political analysts have discovered whether the episode actually did hurt her during the rest of the campaign. Certainly she won the Pennsylvania primary pretty convincingly, but did for example the lingering effects of this damage her during the Indiana/North Carolina primaries, which were what effectively ended her last chances of winning? If analysis shows that in the end the episode made no difference, then the planned rewrite of this section (see above) might omit it, or relegate it to a footnote.

In any case, I don't see how you can say inclusion of this episode is "sexist". Many a male politico's campaign has been sunk or damaged by the same kind of exaggeration of past record. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look more closely at the role of the sniper event and see what actual significance it has with her campaign, but that isn't as significant as the fact that going into speculation about how it undermined her credibility is presumptuous. You're claim that this is what any male politico goes through intrigued me, so I've been comparing this article to other male politicians', and to be honest with you it seems pretty clear to me that this article is actually disproportionately negative compared to all the male politician pages I've seen and many don't mention near as many or any of the little negative campaign events as are in this one. For instance, the only thing in Obama's article is a small blurb on the Jeremiah Wright controversy and has no mention at all of his "bitter" comment about people "clinging to their guns", failure to wear the American flag pin on his lapel, or the small amount of his income he donated to charity.. all of which received much more than national press and attention (especially the bitter comment.. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/14/politics/fromtheroad/entry4013565.shtml). My charge of sexism is not as random as you might think (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13women.html?hp); I'd recommend comparing the articles on the male politicos you're talking about to Ms. Clinton's and see if the levels of negative are comparable--that's what the Times article is about.. undue negative scrutiny of Senator Clinton not because she's running for a high office or doesn't have tough skin but because she is a woman.

Random12345678910 17:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize that we have female editors at WP as well? Are all or most of them sexists besides you or are they just holding back? Anyway. To call editors on this article sexists is in my mind silly and has no ground. If you'd have bias concerns against Clinton I could accept it as an opinion with some base to it.

So here you got my opinion on it. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said anybody was sexist, I said it could come off as sexist, which is true for lots of the coverage of Sen. Clinton's campaign not just in Wikipedia. I also don't think being a woman makes you more or less sexist than anybody else. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia and don't know how many editors you have on this one article, but I am a regular person, and I read this article and saw more negative than in any of the other male candidates' articles, and found the line about the sniper to be presumptuous.

Random12345678910 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama's a bad article to compare to, because it's been in extensive edit warfare for much of the past few months. Try comparing to Rudy Giuliani, if you want to see an article about a male politico with lots of negativity. That said, all these comparisons are pretty much fruitless. Each article is worked on by different sets of editors, have different styles, different judgments about what to leave in and what to leave out, and so forth. In other words, if you're looking for high levels of editorial consistency, Wikipedia is the wrong place! And if you have other specific objections to this Hillary article besides the Tuzla episode, please bring them forward. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity

I just had to edit a bunch of bogus about the selection of Biden "over Clinton" being "generally considered" to be "an insult to the 18 million people who voted for her" out of the article. Come on, people, maybe you're upset or maybe you're just looking to start a fight, but go find a blog for that. This is Wikipedia, not an editorial, not a blog, and certainly not a place for weasel words. --Kudzu1 (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the whole vice-presidential pick addition to the campaign article for now. It was too long and detailed for the main article (at what time Obama made the pick is irrelevant), had inadequately formatted citations, and most importantly rested on false assumptions. The "dream team" stuff was mostly the press talking, Obama never seriously considered HRC for veep, nor should he have: when you win you get to decide, you're under no obligation to pick the second-place finisher, and in this case the second-place finisher came with way too much baggage (Bill, for starters). At some point I'll briefly add the veep selection when we describe HRC's role at the convention after that happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

First First Lady With Professional Career?

I doubt the accuracy of the statement that Hillary was the 1st First Lady with a Professional Career. Nancy Reagan was an actress, Betty Ford was a dancer, Pat Nixon was an economist and a teacher, and Lady Bird Johnson was a businesswoman and journalist. There are probably other examples, too. I would like to remove this statement about Hillary. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopm (talk • contribs) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read it carefully enough. It says "She was the first First Lady ... to have her own professional career up to the time of entering the White House." That last part is the key. The women you mention had all stopped those careers well before entering the White House as First Ladies. The difference is significant, as Hillary was part of the generation of women where maintaining a professional career coincided with getting married and having children. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could clarify to say, "She was the first First Lady ... to maintain her own professional career even during her husband's presidential campaign."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really capture it. I think Pat Nixon, Nancy Reagan, Betty Ford and the others had all stopped working for at least 15 or 20 years before they became First Ladies. As did Laura Bush, for that matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Graduate Studies

On Pat Nixon's page, it says that she is the 1st first lady to hold a graduate degree. On Hillary CLinton's page, it says that she is the 1st first lady to hold a graduate degree. Why the inconsistency? Which one is it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopm (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This article says of Hillary, "She was the first First Lady to hold a post-graduate degree." Pat Nixon's article refers to graduate degree (meaning B.A. or equivalent), and Hillary is something after that (law degree). So they aren't in direct conflict, although the editors of both articles are trying to better understand this question. In particular, Pat Nixon got a certificate that was allegedly the equivalent of a masters. And is it really true that no one before her even got a bachelors? Anyway, this is on our investigation queues. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The last is not true, as Jackie O and Lady Bird both had B.A.'s, for example. Discussion will continue at Talk:Pat_Nixon#Graduate_Studies, since it's there that the question lies. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone needs to correct the vandalism in the first line of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.101.64 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Went 4 1/2 hours before getting reverted. That's what happens when you lose an election, you're yesterday's news and no one cares if your WP page gets trashed either. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Public service, executive, and legal career of Hillary Rodham Clinton"

Perhaps a new page should be created about Clinton's years as a lawyer, activist, executive, etcetera? And should that section really be called "Family, law career, and First Lady of Arkansas"? It seems to me a seperate section for family is appropriate and maybe it should be called something like "Public servcie and legal career". In researching her career one finds her independent career is much more important in her story in that period of time than her post as FLOA. Moderate2008 (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This must be a wind-up. Have you not even read the article? Probably not. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

HRC's personal and professional career were closely interwined all during this time, which is why we include it all in one chronologically oriented narrative. Our article covers in detail all of the different roles that HRC played during 1974-1992. But many of these did come about, directly or indirectly, as a consequence of the visibility and power that accrued from her being the wife of the governor. And the rest came about as the result of her legal abilities and achievements, which were considerable. So I believe the section is correctly named. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the article, and I have read much on Clinton also. I still doubt the inclusion of FL of Ark. in the title. Wouldn't "Family, public service, and legal career" would work just as well?Moderate2008 (talk)

I don't think so. "Public service" is broad and vague, "First Lady of Arkansas" is a well-recognized position. And it's important to keep "Marriage" in the section title, since the decision did not come easily to her, and it would have major positive and negative consequences for the rest of her life. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

new photo

Nice addition, Bbsrock, of picture from today of Hillary speaking for Obama. Clearly makes an important point. Thanks! Tvoz/talk 07:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Voter Fraud found by 13 year old Hillary Rodham?

Come on, first of all by all historical accounts if there was any voter fraud it was from the Daley Democratic machine after he held the voting results until the following morning with an incredible 450k democratic margin. Now I am suppose to believe a 13 year old Hillary Rodham found results to the contrary. Clean this up!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.130.61 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article says: "Raised in a politically conservative household,[11] at age thirteen Rodham helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, where she found evidence of electoral fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon.[13]" You and the article are in agreement. You must have thought the article said "by" instead of "against". Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Elector history

Shouldn't there be something about the primaries and convetnion under electoral history? Moderate2008 (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, details like this are usually kept in our "Electoral history of ..." articles (see Category:Electoral history of American politicians for the whole lot). But I discovered that Electoral history of Hillary Rodham Clinton wasn't linked to from the main article at all, for some reason. I've added a "main" xref in the Electoral history section to it, and I've also added it to Template:Hillary Rodham Clinton. So now at least that article is visible. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa

Regarding this revert, according to this source (10th paragraph), Hillary Clinton is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. [13:11, November 5, 2008 Msgj]

Hmm. I'd like something a little more definitive; this speaker could have been picking up on some folklore on the Internet that was wrong. I just don't remember reading this in any of her biographies. I'll check the next time I'm in the library. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. MSGJ 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Move

Should this page be moved to Hillary Clinton? Per WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks, Genius101 ^Guestbook 15:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 9#Requested move. MSGJ 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

See the FAQ pointed to above. This has been discussed several times, and there was another requested move here where it was clearly decided not to. And now that her campaign is over, where she was often using "Hillary Clinton", she's gone back to her Senate career, where she has always most definitely been Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This should be left as is. She is almost always known as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Moderate2008 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Cabinet

She has been mentioned, within the past few days, as a potential:

• United States Secretary of State
• United States Attorney General (which she and Bill considered in 1993 before learning it was illegal)
• United States Secretary of Health and Human Services
• United States Secretary of Education (which she and Bill considered in 1993 before learning it was illegal)

She is also considered a possible future

• Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
• Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (Should Roberts step down, which is unlikely)
• Governor of New York
• Senate Majority Leader
• Democratic National Committee Chair

and even

• Mayor of New York City (most doubtful of everything on this list, I think)

Should a section on her political future, or an equivilant, be added?

Moderate2008 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of these "mentions" don't have much behind them. Per this story: "Mrs. Clinton told Fox News last month that there was “probably zero” chance of her becoming Senate majority leader. Several Senate Democratic aides concur, noting that many of her colleagues supported Mr. Obama for president. Asked about the chances that she would run again for president, she said, “Probably close to zero.” Supreme Court nominee? “Zero,” she said. “I have no interest in doing that.”" And per this story: "Asked whether she would join an Obama administration, Clinton said: "I want to be the best senator I can be from New York."" Given what these stories say, I think the most likely future is either the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee post or taking the point on health care legislation if Kennedy is not up to it. But we don't have to speculate in our article; if something happens, we'll include it then. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Very true. However, people always say they will not take such posts until they were offered. Just like Sarah Palin and [[Joe Biden would never even consider running for VP and said they would not run... until they were asked of course. Hillary is the same way. In the 1990s she said she would never run for elected office (although I do not believe she had any intention to in the early years of the first Clinton administration). And now she's been asked to be Secretary of State and is considerably weighing it. It'll be an interesting article if she decides to take on that job, that's for sure. Moderate2008 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Applied for astronaut training?

Alfred Webre in an episode of his radio show, ExoPolitics Radio, on December 12, 2007 (time: 00:05:45) relays information that Hillary Clinton is believed to have applied for the astronaut training program "very early on in her career, I think while she was still in college", but that she was turned down. If reliable sources can be found to corroborate this, it perhaps warrants mention in the article? __meco (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. What happened was that when she was in middle school in the early 1960s she decided she wanted to become an astronaut and wrote to NASA asking how to prepare for that career. They replied telling her to forget about it, as only men could become astronauts. See ABC News story for one source on this. So no, she never actually applied. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead-too-long tag

User:Meco has applied a lead-is-too-long tag to the article. I respectfully disagree. It's four paragraphs, which is within the 2-to-4-paragraph guideline, and the high end is appropriate for an article of this length and scope. It's important to get all the salient aspects of her life and career into the lead, because we know that many readers never go past that, and because some WP-on-paper or WP-on-CD/DVD proposals intend to just use the lead sections of articles and drop everything else. Finally, this article has been through WP:FAC twice, and the length of the lead has never been raised as an issue as far as I recall. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I just think that a lede which fills up your entire screen will discourage a lot of readers. __meco (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your metric is very dependent upon computing environment. With the notebook computer and Firefox 3 browser I'm using right now, for example, almost all of our major biographical articles "fill up the screen", including Rudy Giuliani, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, Grover Cleveland, Bob Dylan, etc. I don't get discouraged when I read these, I just scroll down. For that matter, I've read Wikipedia articles on mobile phone browsers too, where you have to start scrolling right away after a few sentences. And the Wikipedia layout isn't really optimized towards cramming as much information into the first screen as possible, otherwise the housekeeping menus and tabs wouldn't be at the top, much less the begathon banner of the last few days. Finally, on a substantive note, please realize that what's in the lead now has been worked out over a period of years as part of finding a neutral balance of what to include there. Take away her First Lady legislative initiatives that succeeded, for example, and someone will want to take away the health care initiative that failed. Take away her being on the board of Wal-Mart and someone will say we're whitewashing her time as part of one of America's most controversial corporations. Take away the "more primaries and delegates than any" description and someone will say we're minimizing her accomplishments during the 2008 campaign. And so on. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems analogous to the phenomenon known as instruction creep, and the fact that the introduction has steadily been built over a long period does not stave off this insiduous process, quite the contrary in many cases. I'm not asserting that compacting this section will be easily accomplished, I'm merely stating that I experienced it as a put-off. My statement about it filling up my whole screen is obviously highly relative and should not be the focus here. It was only used to illustrate my point and perhaps badly chosen. __meco (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. We'll see what others say. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe it needs to be left as is. She has had an unbelieveably long career and has done much. Some would say the intro does not even really do her pre-White House years justice and does not have much on her First Ladyship or Senate tenure either. She has had a long career in politics, law, business, charity, and public service that has spanned three decades. This seems an appropriate lead to an article deticated to a career that long. It should be left as is. Especially if she gets some other job in the future. [3] Moderate2008 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the absolute minimum to me. And the argument that it will discourage readers is very feeble. I feel the tag can be removed.--PremKudva^Talk 11:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has supported the tagger's position on this, and since the length of the lead was not objected to in the past or in FAC, I've removed the tag. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to that considering the consensus. __meco (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Madam Secretary?

Andrea Mitchell reported a leak today from the Obama transition team about Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. It is being described as the biggest news of the transition thus far and the biggest leak from the Obama camp in a long time/ever. This definetly merits a mention, whether or not she gets it. Reports say Obama is none too pleased with Kerry and Richardson, and reports state she has moved to the top of the list.

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Moderate2008 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in case

<speculative infobox removed -- if it happens we'll change it>

This is really simple. If Obama makes a public announcement that HRC is his Sec of State nominee, we'll state it in the article lead. If she's confirmed, we'll add it to the infobox. But this will happen when the Obama transition team makes a formal announcement. It won't happen because The Guardian reports it. If you don't recall from the two years of presidential campaigning, many times newspapers gets things like this wrong. Accuracy is more important than being first on the block for us. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is, however, accurate to state that she is on the short list. We know she was offered. We know she is considering it. Moderate2008 (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't know that it has been offered. We just know that there have been serious discussions between Obama and HRC about the possibility. There are many complications -- does Obama really want to do it, does HRC really want the job, can the Bill conflict-of-interest issues be resolved, will Obama supporters be unhappy, can she get confirmed, etc. We will wait and see what happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First Lady is not an Office

How is the first lady a office...unless it is appointted by the president...lol [03:11, November 17, 2008 71.206.181.241]

Actually, it was regarded as an honorary, yet official, postion within the White House for many years - all other First Ladies have such infoboxes and it is considered an "office", as in the "The Office of the First Lady" (which, I doubt, refer to an election). But in 1994, under Hillary Rodham Clinton, a U.S. federal court case ruled that the First Lady is an official of the government. The case came about because some said that while the Clinton administration said only "government officials" could participate in the 1993 and 1994 health care negotiations led by the First Lady, Hillary was joining - she was not a gov't official they said, and the meetings should be open to everyone if she could participate. So the case went to court, and majority ruled that the First Lady is in fact an official of the government. So, thanks to Hillary, there was, for the first time, a legal verdict on the First Ladyship as a government office - and it was that, yes, it is. Moderate2008 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this issue before several times, look back through the Talk archives. The "office" is really a side-effect of using the infobox template we do. But all the First Lady articles are like this, including ones that are FA like Nancy Reagan and Pat Nixon. So it's not worth worrying about. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Secretary of State

Unless you have a source beyond the Guardian article or an article talking about the Guardian article, please don't say Hillary is the next Secretary of State!

Several of us read the Guardian article here and began making edits about Hillary officially accepting Obama's nomination to Secretary of State. The Magnificent Clean-keeper removed these edits, likely because he didn't feel the Guardian article was enough proof. Well, fair enough - if the news is true, other news sources should be covering it. I just wanted to mention that here so others would know to not go crazy editing for Secretary of state until we know more. - FlyingToaster 06:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why I removed it.

I was watching news for several hours (and different channels) and then I found out that WP seems to know much more and I just had wasted plenty of time, (maybe being in a time-loop of yesterdays news reports?). So I checked the given and plenty of other sources but absolutely none confirmed these edits (especially in their extend). The good "news" is, that spending my time "attached" to the news channels wasn't wasteful at all and good for WP too. I'm sorry if I took your excitement about Hillary's (highly possible) nomination away. ;)

And by the way: If confirmation should come it'll be all over the news for sure.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you're clearly right here. I saw the Guardian article five minutes after it went out and just assumed we were about to see a wash in the news (the Guardian would never be anything but journalistically responsible, right? right?). But, hours after the fact and nothing, so you called it well. And this morning, oh yes indeed, a hastily-made backpeddling Guardian video where a swankily dressed Brit manages to let us know that the Guardian was running on a rumor by talking down to us with the same stale cabinet speculation. It's rare to see an apology disguised so well. Around 2:30 of the video, he finally mentions the leak. He asks, who leaked it? Is it the Hillary camp? Or Obama? THEN HE DOESN'T ANSWER. You ran with the story Guardian, stop playing games. FlyingToaster 16:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The cool-headed BBC is taking the same tack (linky) FlyingToaster 07:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

News organizations get this sort of speculation wrong all the time, either in their haste to break news or because they are being played by some of the parties involved. And there's a good adage about rumor-stage situations like this: The people who know aren't talking, and the people who are talking don't know. We will wait until something is officially announced. That's what we do here. That way we don't embarrass ourselves. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, folks, we need to be more conservative in the lead. Nothing has been announced officially yet, so Sec State mention does not belong in the first paragraph, but rather at the end of the lead in chrono order with everything else. Also, I'm not sure her losing presidential campaign belongs in the first paragraph of the lead either, since she didn't even gain the party nomination, but since it's been there all along I guess it can stay in for now. Finally, the style of this article is no footnotes/cites in the lead; those go in the body, which I have augmented now with today's developments. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NPR claims to be certain. —Werson (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we can say it will happen at this point, but it hasn't happened yet. And for editors to remove important material from the lead section with this edit, while adding minutae of recent developments with these edits, is misguided. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Those edits were by different people. How is what two different people did independently of each other "misguided"? I was in the process of moving said minutae into the body of the article but I couldn't because of an edit conflict with you. You just deleted it, while failing to put the information in the body of the article where it belongs.

"Okay, we can say it will happen at this point, but it hasn't happened yet." What are you referring to exactly? —Werson (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying coverage of Secretary of State in the lead section should be minimal, since nothing official has been announced by anybody yet. Editors (not you) were putting in things all sorts of things, changing the infobox, etc., none of which is appropriate. The body of the article does contain a Secretary of State section now, which is strictly speaking premature but which we can live with for now. The only thing I removed from there was when she would be sworn in, which is WP:CRYSTAL since she hasn't been nominated yet, much less confirmed. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the headline is premature, but I don't know what else to put it under. It seems inelegant to have a section called "Senate career (2008–present)" with a single paragraph about how she's planning to resign from the Senate. It can't go under "presidential campaign", because it has nothing to do with that and it can't go under the previous "Senate career" without screwing up the chronology. "Post-presidential-campaign career" might be a good compromise. —Werson (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I added "intended nomination" to the header for now. If she gets the position, we'll just drop that part and this material will be the start of that. Her post-campaign, pre-Sec State career will have been sufficiently short that we won't need any section for it. If Sec State doesn't go through, we'll rename this "Senate career (2008—present)" as you said. But having a section including "Secretary of State" will at least hopefully get editors to put current developments there instead of in the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, as for the lead being too pedantic (your edit comment), she was First Lady of both Arkansas and the U.S. for long stretches, and had significant accomplishments during both periods. That's why we have to make clear which is which. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My main gripe was with "first female Senator from New York", and I had to get rid of the excessive details about the nomination, and then I went edit-crazy, so I apologize for that. —Werson (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Rumors of nomination were fake, put out by Clinton camp! DUN DUN DUN. FlyingToaster 09:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I find Drew's account a little unconvincing. Yes, one of the ways to run for appointive office (a whole underappreciated area of political art) is to do the kind of exaggerated leaking described here, to get oneself 'mentioned'. But Obama holds all the power in this relationship; as is pointed out, HRC doesn't have seniority, doesn't have a committee or a subcommittee, doesn't have much except 18 million votes half a year ago and a huge campaign debt. If Obama doesn't want her as Sec State, he doesn't have to pick her! It's that simple, just as it was for the veep selection, for which she was never seriously considered. The Drew article might be a good cite later on, when we know what's happened and can balance it with other accounts, but I wouldn't use it right now. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely - no way would I add any of this to the article yet. If anything, it just shows how murky the waters now are. FlyingToaster 17:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If Drew says so, then there probably is something to it. Even if true and backed up by other sources, I'm not sure it adds anything to the article - unless she turns out to be a lousy secretary of state. I like this line in the Drew article: an object lesson to Obama (which he had reason to know already) that getting involved with the Clintons is rarely uncomplicated! --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

First female Senator from New York

Is this significant? Is there media coverage of this statistic? —Werson (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There was some. She was the first "major" statewide official from New York, meaning either senator or governor. We couldn't say that compactly, however, and there was a lesser female statewide official before her (lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey Ross). So this is what we ended up with. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Presidential campaign section revised

I've done my long-promised reworking of the 2008 presidential campaign section. I've based it on a number of lengthy retrospective pieces that were published as or after the campaign ended, that provide a more analytical framework for what happened (and that all pretty much agree with each other). I've removed some of the blow-by-blow descriptions of each primary that were written as they took place, while still maintaining the overall campaign narrative. I've also removed some of the peripheral episodes of the campaign, such as the Hsu bundling or the Ferraro statement, that didn't have a significant or lasting effect on the campaign and aren't mentioned in the retrospectives (of course, these episodes and much more are still present in the underlying separate campaign article). In their place I've stressed some of the key factors that led to HRC's loss, such as not planning for a longer campaign, staff turmoil, ignoring caucuses, etc. As an extra benefit, the size of the campaign section has been reduced by about 20%. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

separate article(s)

I would suggest for her early life(before becoming First Lady of the US), her role as First Lady, and her image as separate articles.--Levineps (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a possibility. But there are a lot of downsides to that approach of using biographical subarticles, as I know from working heavily on the John McCain articles, where that was done. One, it's a lot of work to maintain all the material in two separate places. Two, editors never both to change the subarticle, they just make edits directly to the main article. Three, readers and editors constantly argue over what should be in the main article and what should be relegated to subarticles. This would be especially acute with HRC, given how controversial a figure she is. Anything "negative" that's only represented in a subarticle brings about charges of "whitewashing", while keeping all the negative stuff in the main article brings about charges of bias in the other direction. Fourth and most importantly, subarticles don't work for biographical figures, because no one reads them.

For example, we've long had Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Here are the page view hits for this month so far (from http://stats.grok.se/en/):

• main article, both name forms: 344,100
• Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton: 1,478

That's a 300:1 ratio! And similar patterns are seen for other biographical subarticles. For Barack Obama:

• main article: 7,141,912
• Early life and career of Barack Obama: 71,712
• Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama: 11,421

For George W. Bush:

• main article: 1,075,758
• Early life of George W. Bush: 6,046
• Professional life of George W. Bush: 2,601

The ratios always range between 100:1 and 1000:1. And I've seen the same for McCain, for Giuliani, for historical figures, and so on. The summary style just doesn't work well when the subarticles are for biographical detail. (They work somewhat better for campaign articles, because those get additional link-to's from other election articles and not just the main bio article. And they work much better for the canonical example of World War II, where the dropoff to D-Day/Normandy Landings is only about 6:1.) Furthermore, editors know these statistics, and fight like hell to keep material they care about in the main article, because they know that once it's shipped to a subarticle, it's 99.9% tantamount to just deleting it outright.

So, for Hillary I'm really resistant to the notion of breaking the article up further. The article as it stands is within the size guidelines for readable prose and word count. It has a very specific table of contents, that clearly delineates the different periods of her life; a reader who's interested in her White House years doesn't have to read about her childhood, a reader who's interested in learning more about her Arkansas and professional years can zero in on that, and so forth. The article already has subarticles for many obvious things, such as her three campaigns, the list of books about her, her list of awards, etc., in addition to her Senate years. And this issue has been discussed in the past, and the consensus has been to not break it up further. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WTR on this - this is still manageable and much more valuable as a biography with the current structure. Tvoz/talk 08:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming post of Secy of State, when?

There's no quarentee that Clinton will become Secy of State on Jan 20, 2009. She's yet to be confirmed by the Senate. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, as said elsewhere - that's why it's "designate". Tvoz/talk 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See Treasury Secretary-designate's Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I take your point - how about this edit, just posted? Tvoz/talk 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why jump the gun so quickly? That is one of the problems with Wikipedia. Why not wait until Jan 20 to add it? What is the point in adding it so early? CTJF83Talk 21:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As I replied on my talk page, I might agree with you in some cases, but this is about the entire new administration, not just Hillary CLinton, and it's swimming against the tide - people will add this, so I'm trying just to have it be accurate. It's not like it's likely that she won't be confirmed. Tvoz/talk 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[ec]And as I further say there - it is a verifiable fact that she is the Secy of State-designate, and that is what the article reflects. I already removed (commented out) the navigation box from the bottom which implied that she had already taken office. Designate is designate. Tvoz/talk 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As I also said, there is a chance (none really) that she won't be confirmed, will die, or be in a scandal and not serve at all. Those are all far fetched, but hey, it could happen. CTJF83Talk 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because IPs and new users add it, isn't really a reason to add it, that is what semi-protect is for. I see your reasoning for adding it, I still disagree with it being added at all. CTJF83Talk 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It was not added by an IP or a new user - it's a legitimate add, as "designate". Tvoz/talk 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

←If any of those highly unlikely events were to happen, we'd edit accordingly. Right now, she is certainly the Secy-designate, so we say so. As I mentioned elsewhere - I did comment out (temporarily remove from view) the navigation box that had been put on the bottom, because it implied she was already the Secy of State, and that's not ok. So I don't totally disagree with you - just am trying to find a balance between what will inevitably be added and verifiable fact. Tvoz/talk 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem in the text listing it, just an infobox for it. We can just see what other users think about it. I have to run now for a few hours. I'll be back to see if other users have commented. CTJF83Talk 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too, actually! Cheers Tvoz/talk 22:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem with removing the Cabinet nominee-designate stuff, from all related bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those who say caution is warranted here. What looked to be easy cabinet nominations have gone down in flames, witness John Tower and Zoë Baird. But like Tvoz said, WP editors are eager to jump the gun on this, so we do the best we can. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd put cash on the table on this one passing, but that's neither here nor there. If we stick to "designate" with the footnote, we're on safe ground. Tvoz/talk 00:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I can live with the infobox, but the Cabinet templates at the bottom bug me. No president yet, no cabinet yet. But I've already learned to dislike this kind of thing at Joe Biden, not to mention Jill Biden, so I guess I can here too. Some WP editors are just template-crazy; there were people coding up the Sec State templates in this article and commenting them out until the minute they could be revealed ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What offered to stay in Senate?

There have been a number of reports on this subject. This Politico story from a couple of weeks ago said Kennedy offered her a health care task force but not a subcommittee. This NYT story from a while back says a special leadership role might have been created for her. This Daily News story from today said she was offered Appropriations chair, which sounds really unlikely, given how the Senate works. This Politico story says that was wrong, it was just a seat on Appropriations, which is hardly exciting. And there may have been other stories I've forgotten. So which is right? Don't know at the present time. I think it's eventually worth including something, to show that the Senate wanting to keep her, but for now we need to wait until we get a more definitive account. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving some sections to sub-articles

This article has gotten quite large (over 176kb last I looked). Can we begin discussion on how we can move some of the sections to their own pages and drastically shorten a synopsis of the related pages? For example, the "Cultural and political image" section can be moved to a whole new article/page. As well as good chucks of her early lie and career in Arkansas, chucks of her role as first lady, off-loading the bulk of her Senate term sections, etc. We should then retain much more condensed synopsis of those new pages in the sections here. Lestatdelc (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's 157k. And please see discussion right above. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Shouldn't the name of the article be "Hillary Rodham-Clinton", or at the very least just "Hillary Clinton", and in the opening paragraph we write "Hillary Diane Clinton (nee Rodham)" or "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton", or something of the sort? Didn't she legally assume his name? Or has this already been discussed and settled? Orane (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The article name has been discussed many times, with two RfM's both resulting in it staying the way it is. And it is never hyphenated; read any New York Times or Washington Post article and you'll see they follow the same practice we do -- it's Hillary Rodham Clinton on first reference, then Clinton (or Mrs. Clinton in the case of the Times) on subsequent references. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Was just wondering. Orane (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Added photos

This article has suffered from the usual WP problem of having too many recent photos taken during the campaign, not enough ones from earlier eras. I've now added three images that represent her early years or Arkansas period, I've eliminated one not very good campaign photo, and I've shuffled other campaign photos to where they seemed better connected to the text (especially one of her stumping for Obama). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

'Nominee' not 'Designate'

Clinton, like all other announced cabinet positions in an upcoming administration is termed a "Nominee" not a "Designate", even before electors convene, as you can see from this list on the US Senate website, which lists for example Terrel Bell who is shown as nominated on November 7, 1980, only days after the 1980 general election and long before the electors voted in December. Changing all Obama nominees from designate to nominee. Lestatdelc (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it should be "nominee", until editors started using "designate" on earlier Cabinet picks. Google News shows about 2800 hits on the "nominee" form, 800 hits on the "designate" form. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton CANNOT BE a nominee. The Constiution, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2. "[The President] ... shall nominate, and ... shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States ..." Obama is not President. He cannot nominate anyone. Clinton is not a nominee. This article is incorrect. [19:04, December 3, 2008 24.113.155.121]

Wrong. See the link I provided. Once announced they are the nominees and in fact Congress can and has held committee hearings to confirm nominees before a President-elect is even sworn into office. While the Senate doesn't receive official request until swearing in, they are termed nominees by a President-elect.Lestatdelc (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion may rage on until it is overcome by events, but it is worth noting that the Senate (indeed, the entire Congress) will reconvene its new session on January 3, weeks before the new president. That's how some nominees become true designates - with action before the president is sworn in - and can take office on day 1 of his administration. See John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld for examples. It may well be technically true that the president must nominate, but in practice, nominations by the president-elect are acted upon by the Senate.  Frank  |  talk  22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As this BBC article notes: "The first of US President-elect George W Bush's cabinet choices appeared before the Senate on Thursday, beginning a series of confirmation hearings. Don Evans, nominated by Mr Bush as commerce secretary, was questioned by the Senate Commerce Committee headed by Democrat Senator Fritz Hollings." The date being January 4, 2001, a full 16 days before Bush was sworn in as president. For all practical purposes, everyone, including the Senate, refers to, and moves forward with an announced candidate for a Cabinet position using the term "nominee" before the swearing in. The only legitimate use of "designate" is for designated appointees to non confirmation positions in the Executive staff. Lestatdelc (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Senate itself lists them as Nominees and the dates they were "announced", most of said announcements taking place well before they receive official request for advice and consent post swearing in.Lestatdelc (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, as this USA Today bit (via HotNewz) responds to reader questions regarding nominations of the incoming administration notes:

"Q: When do newly elected presidents pick their Cabinets?

A: December is usually a busy month. George H.W. Bush is the only recent president-elect to nominate a Cabinet member before December. His nominees included longtime friend James Baker, tapped to be secretary of State on Nov. 9, 1988. Bush also made nominations Nov. 15 and Nov. 21, just weeks after his election.

Before him, Dwight Eisenhower was the last president-elect with November appointments. He announced three picks Nov. 20, 1952, including secretary of State John Foster Dulles.

John Kennedy made his first selection Dec. 1, 1960, nominating Abraham Ribicoff for what was then called the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Incoming presidents have announced their picks in different ways. Richard Nixon unveiled his entire Cabinet in a nationally televised event Dec. 11, 1968. Ronald Reagan disclosed eight Cabinet or Cabinet-level appointments Dec. 11, 1980, including the Treasury, Defense and attorney general posts.

Secretary of State is a frequent opening selection. President-elect Jimmy Carter nominated Cyrus Vance for the diplomatic job Dec. 3, 1976. George W. Bush announced Colin Powell on Dec. 16. 2000, less than a week after the Supreme Court ended a recount of votes in Florida that sealed the presidency for Bush.

Bill Clinton made economics the focus of his first Cabinet picks. On Dec. 10, 1992, he nominated an economic team that included then-Texas senator Lloyd Bentsen as the Treasury chief."

As I noted above, everyone, including both the media the Senate refers to announced nominees to Cabinet positions as "nominees" and the Senate can and has taken up hearings on nominees weeks before a new President is sworn in. Lestatdelc (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would add that "designate" is probably also an appropriate term to use for a person who has been confirmed by the Senate and simply awaits the newly-sworn-in president's signature. Such a person would not be an "-elect" because they weren't elected. To the degree that some distinction is required at all (questionable), "designate" may be better at that point. We're a minimum of a month away from that, but it's likely to come up...  Frank  |  talk  00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Designate is appropriate terminology for someone who does not need confirmation by the Senate, and is simply awaiting for the President-elect to be sworn in to take their offices, which happens at the same moment. Nominee is the proper term for someone put forward by a President-elect until such time as they are confirmed with the Senate's consent to the formal request by the Executive. Lestatdelc (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but...what do we call the nominee once s/he's been confirmed by the Senate, but before the new president takes office?  Frank  |  talk  02:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

They are still called a nominee until they actually take office, just as a staff, director, etc. appointment that does not need confirmation is a designate until they take office after being named (i.e. when Obama takes office). The actual "confirmation" is not acted upon until the President-Elect becomes President and formally send the request for for consent to the Senate (i.e. after Obama takes office). But from the time a President-elect (or sitting President for that matter) announces their nominee for a position requiring consent from the Senate (i.e. "confirmation") they are a "nominee" until they are confirmed or withdrawn. The Senate can and does refer to the nominee from the time they are announced until the request is rejected or they give consent (confirm) of the nominee, and can call hearings, etc. to begin the process and all the while the nominee is refereed to as such by the Senate, by the media, by most of the public (except for those in denial or wanting to argue a meaningless point that somehow Obama has no ability to announce his nominations for posts in his pending administration, which is simply not true). Lestatdelc (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no legal "magical moment" when a person becomes a nominee. Even mid term appointees are called "nominee" after they are announced but before the actual nomination goes to the Senate. This really shouldn't be a big deal. -Rrius (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with either term. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, with the whole Bill Richardson thing, do we really want to be counting eggs before they hatch (or worse yet, jinx it)? The infobox is simply presuming she will be confirmed (a safe presumption to be sure...for now), when in fact the whole section on her status as nominee or designate or whatever you want to call her should be hidden until she actually is confirmed. That's just my take anyway. SchutteGod (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.171.159 (talk)

The infobox is in line with all the other Cabinet nominees. They are nominees, in the sense that Senate hearings are being scheduled for them, they're involved in transition activities, etc. If the nomination goes bad and she withdraws, then we'll change the infobox, just as I'm sure was done real fast for Richardson. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

'Dreams Taking Flight'

In the writings section would it be possible to add information on Hillary's storybook for young people? Information was sent out to members in Europe and Ireland today, yesterday in the United States of America. Official page here and below is an email from Hillary's mother:

Dear (Name),

I'm so proud of everything my daughter has accomplished and excited about what her future holds.

Her life is full of amazing achievements, and her story has inspired millions of people, especially young girls, to achieve their dreams, no matter what they are.

There's a wonderful book about her life I'd like to share with you. It's called Hillary Clinton: Dreams Taking Flight, and it is the perfect way to share my daughter's story with a child you want to inspire.

As you know, Hillary is still working hard to pay down the debt from her campaign, and I hope you'll take this opportunity to help her out. With your contribution of $50, you will receive a copy of Dreams Taking Flight with a specially designed Hillary Clinton bookplate.

And for that special person in your life, with a contribution of $250 or more, you will receive a book that's personally signed by Hillary to him or her by name.

Contribute to help pay down Hillary's debt, and we'll send you a copy of Hillary Clinton: Dreams Taking Flight.

I know you're just as proud as I am of everything my daughter has achieved, and I want to thank you for everything you've done to support her!

Thanks,

Dorothy

Also, does anyone know of any ISBN details?--Theosony (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the ISBN is 1416971297 but the book is not by her, it's about her. Authors are Kathleen Krull and Amy June Bates and it was published in August 2008. I don't see a place for it here in this article, and not even sure if it goes in List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton, although I'm not particularly against it going there. Tvoz/talk 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tvoz that it shouldn't go here. As for List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton, up till now I haven't included children's and juvenile books there. Arguably I should, though, because the existence of so many of them (there are at least a dozen) tells you something about Hillary's place in American culture and history. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Maybe it would be good to add it to the List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton. I agree that it is difficult to make the decision due to the volume of books detailing her life in both fiction and non-fiction, but maybe it would be a good start to listing juvenille/youth-targeted books so that the information on Wikipedia is slightly more expansive. It's daunting to think of the amount of books there are. Today I went to a bookshop here in Ireland and there was a catalogue of books by, about and featuring Clinton. She has made a massive impact in Ireland.--Theosony (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've now added this and others at List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton#Children's and juvenile. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Better picture

please, would somebody find better picture then That is already on here [rude remarks deleted] [22:26, December 7, 2008 196.207.47.60]

Once she's Sec State, she'll get a new official picture, and we will use that for the top photo. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to that. Tvoz/talk 07:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I also look forward to it, but what if the new photo is bad too? Presumably she had some sort of control over this image, it being her official photo. If a public domain or CC-BY-SA licensed photo (please let me know if wiki will take anything else) could be found that is more generous to HRC, would that be acceptable? 69.177.233.215 (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For the top photo, our standard practice is to use the most recent official, formal portrait available. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The official portrait had some small problems that I corrected, such as contrast, brightness and color to bring it up to a similar standard as other portraits. I also cropped it for better composition.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sitting President or President Husband

Great work on this article. I was just curious about the laws regarding appointing a sitting first lady to a cabinet position, i.e. her husband appoints her while in office vice getting appointed by a later President. Clinton of course will be the first former First Lady appointed to a cabinet position but the US has never had a sitting First Lady hold any type of government position as far as I know. I also think that this is important to make clear in the article. Non-Americans, in particular from the Middle East, are used to sitting rulers appointing their wives to some sort of government position. The UAE is well known for doing this. Anyway, I dont edit these types of articles much and this is a very active one right now so I did not want to just start adding things but leave it up to the people who are more active on this page. -OberRanks (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise (it's rare enough in this business :-) During the Clinton transition of 1992-93, there was some thought given to his appointing Hillary as U.S. Attorney General. But it was decided this would be in violation of an anti-nepotism law passed in the 1960s following RFK serving as JFK's AG. That's the closest any sitting first lady has come to a cabinet position (although Edith Wilson served as a de facto president of sorts during the last parts of Wilson's presidency). We've had several tries at the wording in the lead section to get this across ... we'll give another go once Hillary is confirmed and we don't have to phrase the whole thing in designee-speak. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Hillary was considred for Attorney General before they found that law in their way. Also, she considered becoming U.S. Secretary of Education or White House Chief of Staff, which is Cabinet-level (she would not have been blocked from doing this, but advisers worried about having a Chief of Staff the President couldn't fire). In the end she was appointed to chair the health care task force (Bob Dole and others called her the "Minister of Health Care") and after that she took on everything from foreign to domestic policy--she became kind of a minister without portfolio; but she is the closest an incumbent FL came to being appointed, and that's as close as one will get unless the law is changed. Moderate2008 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Info box for FLOARK, LSC

I don't know if the First Lady of Arkansas box is staying, but (to start an old argument, from what I can see in the archives) I think if it is it should be accompanied by a box for the LSC. Also, I think at the bottom there should be a succession box for the CDF. Moderate2008 (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

THe LSC absolutely does not belong in the infoboxes. Tvoz/talk 07:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not supposed to go on forever. The LSC already has a succession box and a nav box at the bottom. If you think the LSC is important (which it is), I suggest working on improving the Legal Services Corporation article, which I did a lot of work on for the period up until around 1985 but which is pretty threadbare after that. And the idea of a succession box for CDF board chair is silly. Focus first on improving the Children's Defense Fund article, which is currently awful (and which doesn't mention any of its board chairs, including HRC). Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm for retiring the First Lady boxes to the bottom, at the succession boxes. That she was First Lady is prominent in the lead, and the infobox is probably better for her elected/appointed positions that are not honorary titles. Hekerui (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Being FL of the US was a very important part of her career, and I don't think it should be left out. The closest analogue, Eleanor Roosevelt, doesn't leave it out of her infobox either. Being FL of Arkansas was also very important, and on balance I would argue against taking that out too, although it's a closer call. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm for putting Chair of the Legal Services Corporation in the infobox for the mere reason that it is a Presidential appointment. Clinton had to undergo Senate confirmation once President Carter had appointed her to Chair the LSC. Why I would be against it--the infobox is already long enough. Rick Evans (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

First Lady

Much seems to be missing from the First Lady section both when it comes to her policy intitiatives and advising her husband. Moderate2008 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Such as what, specifically? General statements like this don't do much good, so list five things that are missing, say. Also, "advising her husband" is hard to document, since much of that advice may have escaped formal meetings, minutes, and the like. All First Ladies advise their husbands, but most important are cases where the President was going to do A but the First Lady convinced him to do B. Finally, note that Hillary's political involvement tended to vary over time: very heavy at the start, then a pullback after the health care failure and backlash, then reasserting herself in places, then got caught up in Whitewater for a while, then reasserting, then the Monica business broke, then Bill confessed and they weren't talking to each other, then impeachment, then she focused on running for Senate ... so it's hard to make blanket statements about her political influence with Bill or in policy in general. It's better to point out specific instances were she was influential. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples

I understand, and I've provided a few of many examples.

Some examples of important influence are found in Sally Bedell Smith's For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years and were documented in a Newsweek article [8]:

• Hillary was a behind-the-scenes adviser, so secretive that she would tell her staff "don't leave any finger prints" and was called the "Supreme Court" by the senior staff for Bill's need to have her OK all major decisions.

• She was commonly at West Wing meetings and strategy sessions and was known for her "confrontational style".

• Her pushing for Baird, Wood, and Reno should be in there -- that was all her.

• She also was responsible for many others like Albright and Shalala.

• She personally interviewed and screened any and all potential cabinet members and senior staff.

• Melanne Verveer, her Chief of Staff, met with Justice Department officials every week and, on behalf of the First Lady, helped screen appointees to the federal bench.

• In the summer of 1993 she initially tried to derail NAFTA, but she later reconsidered after aides advised against it. It is widely thought that she had the power to kill NAFTA if she wanted to.

• In 1994 Hillary advised Bill to send U.S. troops into Rwanda to stop the slaughter; that time he did not take her advice

• Bill reversed a decision to bomb Serbian military positions and help Muslims arm themselves after Hillary advised him against it, reportedly seeing it as another "Vietnam". Two years later Hillary had a change of heart. Bill Clinton then used force.
• Hillary pressed Bill to veto the first 2 welfare reforms passed by the Republican Congress (otherwise he probably would have signed them); she told him to sign the third. He did.

In Living History she states that her first major policy job was being the official U.S. Representative to the United Nations World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995. That month she was al[so sent on a five-nation goodwill tour to South East Asia. (Living History p. 269). She meets with B. Bhutto in Pakistan, with Mother Teresa at an Indian orphanage, with the Indian premier, P. V. Narasimha Kao. In India she gave a major women's rights speech at the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (LH p. 277) and visited SEWA (p. 280). In Nepal she negotiated American aid to Nepal and investment in Nepal with King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev. She also notes that the State Department sent her to places that were "hot spots" and that the President and Vice President should not visit for security reasons. A Woman in Charge by Carl Bernstein says that the trip was, at least in part, to improve Indian and Pakistani relations with the U.S. (WIC p. 419). This trip also helped to improve her image with the press (WIC p. 420).

Hillary lobbied for laws that ensured women could stay in the hospital for over 24 hours after child-birth (Living History, p. 248). The State Department sent Hillary to Bosnia-Herzengovina to promote the Dayton Peace Accords (p. 341) but, unfortunately, she does not write of any sniper fire :).

The White House Website:

• Her staff met with the President's staff every day and she routinely took meetings with cabinet officers and other top-level people.

And, also, there is no mention of the fact that she was in serious consideration for Attorney General and Secretary of Education before the nepotism laws surfaced. And she probably would have been named White House Chief of Staff, a job she wanted, unless the staff intervened and told the Clintons that Bill needed to be able to fire his chief of staff.

I also believe that we can use her schedule to further analyze her role, now that it is available.

[9]

For example, it shows, according to CBS News, that in 1999 she was instrumental in presuading the Prime Minister and President of Macedonia to keep borders open to refugees by urging U.S. textile comapanies to resume business there. [10]

Thanks!

Moderate2008 (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of these statements are vague and difficult to prove and they often assert opinion. I believe there would be conflict with WP:NPOV. Hekerui (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we really should avoid using Living History as a source for HRC activities or accomplishments, especially during her later periods. All autobiographies are suspect as WP:PRIMARY sources with a necessarily skewed point of view, autobiographies of political figures are worse, and autobiographies of active political figures are even worse still. They are invariably self-serving. In particular, Living History earned a lot of criticism from HRC's recent biographers (Bernstein, Gerth/Van Natta for example) for not being an honest/representative look at her life. (It was still a good/interesting/popular book to read in places, that's not the point.) And again, this is pretty much true of all politico memoirs, not just hers. If you look at our BLPs of political figures such as this one or John McCain or Joe Biden or Geraldine Ferraro, we do tend to cite their memoirs for three things: certain early life episodes or personal life episodes that there aren't sources for anywhere else; quotes; and reactions or portrayal of state of mind for later life episodes. But that should really be it. If you look at this article (before Moderate2008's changes last night), Living History [cited as "Clinton 2003"] appears a lot early, but then disappears almost completely later on. The disappearing is correct, and indeed the appearing a lot early has been criticized in archive Talk comments and I think in one of the FACs. So one of my "to do" items that I haven't gotten around to yet has been to go through the existing Living History cites and replace as many of them with other biographies as possible. So to the issue in hand, I really am convinced that we should not use Living History as a source for having influence or doing accomplishments in the White House during the First Lady years. Such claims are going to have to come from her biographers, not her. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To go to the specifics of Moderate2008's additions last night, they were focused in the foreign policy area, and these are especially problematic on two grounds. First, the sourcing is usually Living History, which is especially unfortunate given that many of her foreign policy claims as First Lady have been challenged by others. We shouldn't rely on her probably exaggerated assessments (or the Obama campaign's overly negative assessments), but rather those of her most neutral biographers. Second, if we start describing the World Summit for Social Development type events she went to, or the goodwill tours she went on, or all the foreign officials she met, we're going to need a lot more space than we have in an already long First Lady section. This would mean creation of the First Ladyship of Hillary Rodham Clinton article, and moving all this stuff (and some of what was previously in the main article) into there. As I've said before, I've been reluctant to do this, because it's a lot of work, there will be disputes about what gets moved out of the main article, and most of all because the readership of subarticles like that is tiny, 1 out of 100 or worse compared to the main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A final thought concerns the future. Given limited space in the main article, which would we rather include: a description of a 1995 trip to Pakistan as First Lady (when she didn't even hold a security clearance) to get some publicity about better relations between that country and India, or a description of a 2010 trip to Pakistan as U.S. Secretary of State to forestall an imminent outbreak of full-scale war, possibly including nuclear weapons use, between that country and India? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with WTR here - in fact I reverted some of last night's edits before seeing this discussion. I agree that relying on Living History so much is asking for criticism that we're being blindly pro-Clinton, and I'd add that relying too much on Bernstein, who also clearly has a POV, might be problematic as well. So I would hope we can find a wider range of sources regarding her accomplishments, including several biographies, scholarly appraisals of the Bill Clinton presidential years, news stories, etc., to accurately characterize her activities.

And I also completely agree with WTR's last point: I see her career, and therefore this biography, as a work-in-progress, and as such we need to be more discriminating about which data points from her history go in and which do not, because there is a lot ahead of her (and therefore us as writers of this bio), and her days as First Lady are only one phase. Tvoz/talk 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now practiced what I'm preaching, in swapping out many of the Living History cites in the pre-recent-changes-version of the article for cites from other good biographies. I've tweaked the text for clarifications, more contemporaneous reactions, and minor additions at the same time. The remaining Living History cites in the pre-recent-changes material are as I describe above, for HRC quotes and for a couple of things that don't have clear sourcing elsewhere (such as the Young Republicans timeline). Tomorrow I'll start looking at the Moderate2008 additions and proposals. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Hillary lobbied for laws that ensured women could stay in the hospital for over 24 hours after child-birth (Living History, p. 248)": Her actual wording in LH is "[a bill] that I had worked for". The law in question is the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996, see here for the law. I can't find any source that says HRC was a major player in it. It bubbled up from a dozen or so states that passed similar laws, then Bill Clinton gave a radio address for it, and Bill Bradley was a major pusher in Congress. It had bipartisan support and the support of doctors. Only the health insurance industry really opposed it. Hillary did write this newspaper column in support of it, but that's not enough to warrant inclusion here, so I've removed it from the article. Anyone interested in pursuing this can add history and references to the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996 article, which doesn't have either. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the March 1995 South Asia trip, both Bernstein and Gerth/Van Natta consider this a very significant trip, not so much for politics but for personal import and women's rights issues. So it deserves to be added, but I've boiled it down from what Moderate2008 put in. The details of who she met with go beyond our space constraints, and I didn't see anything in either of these two biographies to support her negotiating in Nepal. The women's rights speech in India doesn't need to be mentioned, because again we'll soon describe the much more famous speech on the subject in Beijing. The World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen isn't part of this and is less important than the Beijing Conference also, so I took that out too. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding being co-chair of the Beijing conference delegation, an unimportant detail that I've removed; her worldwide stature is what gave her remarks power, not her official position in the conference. Regarding going to 'hot spots' around the world that were too dangerous for Bill, you're going to need a lot stronger cite than Living History to support that, especially in light of the Tuzla fiasco. Removed also. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Northern Ireland and Macedonia, here we get into the thicket of the dispute over HRC's diplomatic role as First Lady. I've added a general statement from this long NYT story about her not having a security clearance or participating in NSC meetings, but rather playing a soft power role in American diplomacy. I've boiled down but left in the Northern Ireland reference, even though it's disputed by some (see here and here in addition to the WaPo cite given), partly because it's well known and partly because she played an indirect role there via Vital Voices. I've removed the Macedonia reference, because it's disputed by this Fact Check and the CBS News video used as a cite made a leap of logic between HRC's schedule notes confirming that she met with Macedonian leaders to her having persuaded them of anything (and the whole rest of the video talked about how the schedules couldn't tell you anything about her policy impact). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding her role in administration appointments, I agree that's very concrete and important, and I've added a description of her role and impact in that from the Troy bio. Regarding all the Lady Macbeth stuff – confrontational, fingerprints, Bill's indecision and deference to, etc. – I'd rather not go there at this point. Every single bio of Hillary, Bill, or the both of them, has a different psychological theory about what made each of them tick. Regarding her behind-the-scenes influence in the White House, again, each biographer has a different narrative of who did what when within the White House. And each biographer has a different set of sources for their account, needless to say with different perspectives (i.e., axes to grind). If we try to reproduce all these narratives with equal weight and balance, we'd easily double the size of the whole section. From the Newsweek article, Sally Bedell Smith doesn't give enough weight to Bill's famous vacillating on decisions and to many other aides no doubt having similar input to Hillary's at those times (e.g., practically everyone had the same opinion shift regarding Yugoslavia from 1993 to 1995). Maybe the book gives better evidence for her conclusions. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "serious consideration" for Cabinet or other positions ... based on the Troy and Bernstein accounts, at the start of the transition there was a lot of thinking out loud about AG, chief of staff, principal domestic advisor, and a few other posts. But most of these were ruled out quickly on political/pragmatic grounds, and by later in November 1992 people realized the nepotism law was also a constraint. So there isn't evidence any of these ideas became "serious", and we've got enough trouble covering all the things that did happen in this article, I don't think we need to spend space on things that didn't. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, regarding your suggestion that "we can use her schedule to further analyze her role, now that it is available", no, that would be WP:OR based upon the most primitive kind of WP:PRIMARY source. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: anti-nepotism cabinet member law, do you have a citation to the U.S. statute, date, or name of the law? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked around myself, and found an initial lead-in to locating the law. Here's a poor-man's cite, and also in another article that cites the anti-nepotism law, on secret "task forces" and public meeting laws, which may shed some historical perspective on the secretive the Vice Pres. Cheney energy industry consultations earlier in his term in office.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Smith, Sally Bedell (December 11, 2007). "Two Presidents in the White House? Bill Clinton's mere presence in the West Wing would be intimidating". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-01-14. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) (Opinion)

• Pear, Robert (March 11, 1993). "Judge Puts Limits on Secret Sessions for Health". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-01-14. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Don't know particulars of the law, but we could definitely benefit from an article on it. There's a somewhat confusing description of the task force issue in Clinton health care plan (1993)#Litigation, which would also benefit from some expansion and clarification. 02:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pumping up the lead

User:Moderate2008 keeps trying to add certain things to the lead. I'm sympathetic with trying to give specifics of HRC's accomplishments there, but some of the changes just aren't appropriate. For instance, we previously added LSC chair there. To then add "legal aid" a second time doesn't make any sense. To add "women ... welfare" to the lead for the Arkansas years doesn't seem supported by the article – other than chairing the ABA commission on women in the law, what did she do? Her work on behalf of children was far more notable, and that's what we mention. Indeed, if I were going to add another thing about her pre-FL-of-US years, it would be her papers on children's rights in the law, which were very influential.

Next is the second or third try for "Politically active throughout the administration she drew controversy from her high profile role, and was the first First Lady to take up offices in the West Wing." Where her offices were is notable enough for the article body to be sure, but we can't seriously want to put that in the lead? Remember that lead space is fixed by the MoS; do you really want to leave out some important result she gets as Secretary of State in 2010 because we were discussing her office location in 1993? Also the "politically active throughout" statement is problematic, because as I just wrote in the above section, her political involvement actually varied back and forth over the eight years. I agree that we should probably mention that she was controversial, but rather than just use that word (which is used in the next sentence anyway, about Whitewater) I have added this: "Her time as First Lady drew a polarized response from the American public." Mentioning this in the lead was radioactive while the campaign was going on and so we shied away from it, but it does accurately represent the "Cultural and political image" section and the lead is supposed to reflect the entire article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

When are you planning to run this article through FAC?

Thoughts? — Realist² 02:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First we have to go through the First Lady issues raised above and either fix up or remove the material recently added (which is not in FAC shape). Then HRC has to actually become Sec State so that her job is certain and the infoboxes etc. can be updated. Then we'll see. The past FAC efforts have resulted in prolonged editorial torture for the article's main editors, with no glory at the end. At a minimum, we try to keep this article in "FA all but star" shape, sort of analogous to the grad student's ABD. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"FA all but star" shape immediately conjures A-Assessment, doesn't it? Hekerui (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The WP Bio project doesn't do A-class reviews anymore. The MILHIST A-class assessment is the only one I know of that has much status associated with it (there could well be others I'm not aware of). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting controversial articles through FAC is not fun is it. I've come to the conclusion that articles on colors, flowers and paintings are best suited to that process. — Realist² 02:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that. Tvoz/talk 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I also need to update the Gallup poll chart. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Such friendly tone, is it NPOV?

Whoever wrote this article must really, really like Hillary. It reads like an election brochure. It makes her look like a semi-saint. What an encylopedia... Or is a lobby-pedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.131.38 (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Last time I looked, her campaign brochures didn't spend quite as much time on "Whitewater and other investigations" and "Lewinsky scandal" as this article does. Not to mention a long account of her losing presidential campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment about NPOV should cite specifics. Avt tor (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave up seeking a NPOV with the HRC entries. I've been following these discussions for more than two years. There is always vigorous discussion ... a back and forth amongst members ... and the editors (protectors of the faith) always seem to win the argument. Go figure ... There are valid reasons why academicians don't allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reference source. No offense - just the truth. Oxfordden (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've said in response to you before, I fully agree that students shouldn't cite WP for any matter on any subject. The better articles (including this one) can serve as a bibliographic starting point, but that's it. Students belong in a library, reading real books and journals. But that has nothing to do with the neutrality of this particular article, and as before I do not agree with your characterization of it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So, I guess we can (respectfully) continue to disagree.Oxfordden (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The section on her Secretary of State tenure seems like its trying to hard to prove that she "has no problem being a team player" and "is gaining skills as an executive". Is this just stating a fact or is it trying to make people think that this is true? Ltwin (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what WP:RS have been saying. Do you know of different reliable sources saying otherwise? The reason it's notable is that the 2008 campaign against Obama had a good deal of bitterness in it, and she was a poor executive in that campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(Wrong) Hillary Clinton RESIGNED her Senate seat today...

Page needs to be updated, she resigned this afternoon upon confirmation of her appointment as U.S. Sec. of State.

Per the Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/01/clinton_steps_down_as_senator.html

22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.210.2 (talk)

She hasn't been confirmed yet, that happens by the full Senate on Tuesday. She just got okayed by the committee. And I haven't seen anything that says she has resigned yet; she just gave her farewell remarks on the Senate floor, which is different. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, she is still a senator, per this recent story; she isn't going to officially resign until she's confirmed as Sec State by the full Senate, which won't happen until at least Tuesday. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Still the same, per this story Cornyn put a procedural block on her so that she couldn't be in the voice votes today, is supposed to go up for full confirmation roll call vote tomorrow. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article currently says that she is both New York's junior Senator and the Secretary of State - isn't that a legal impossibility under Article I? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. But she said she would resign her senate seat 'upon confirmation' so, I guess, we have her in two roles until she formally submits her resignation (to Patterson?) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, she was confirmed at 4:45 this afternoon. The paperwork was then sent to Obama at around five-thirty. He then has to sign the official appointment papers and Clinton has to resign her senate seat, which means that she's going to be sworn in tomorrow morning. That's the 22nd.Ericl (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

She was sworn at 5:29 pm by Kathleen Oberly, Associate Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and resigned her Senate seat immediately. Source, swearing in picture Hekerui (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Too Long

Is there a reason this article is so long? I mean, don't editors edit? This article should be summarized and broken out into subordinate pages. Avt tor (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 13#separate article(s) for the most recent discussion on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Correct me if I`m wrong, but don`t US secretaries have to take an oath before taking office? If this is the case then Clinton and others are not incumbents if they have not taken an oath.ABC101090 (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

By the time we finish dissecting it and arguing about it here, she will have. Tvoz/talk 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

? ABC101090 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if my meaning didn't get through. According to MSNBC, she was sworn in as Secy of State in a private ceremony in her Senate office this afternoon after the vote. My point was that it would happen before the arguing, dissecting and edit warring over it settled down here. As per usual. And here's a citation for her Senate resignation: [11]; something on the swearing in will follow. Relax. A nanosecond after (or even before) it happens makes absolutely no difference. Tvoz/talk 23:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And here is the one on the swearing-in: [12]. Too much energy wasted on worrying about the minute-by-minute updating, if you ask me. The whole thing could have waited until a half-hour later. Tvoz/talk 23:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, resigned from the Senate after being sworn in as Secy of State? Isn't that a breach of seperation of powers & duties thingy. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Maybe Alan Keyes will file a lawsuit. Tvoz/talk 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a resignation letter takes priority over the Constitution. Accepting the position of Secretary of State immediately terminated her position as Senator; the resignation letter served merely as notice. In theory, Governor Patterson could have named a new Senator during that 23 minutes, if he was in that much of a hurry. Avt tor (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Have no fear. How it exactly happened isn't important, as the end result is the desired result. Clinton is no longer a Senator & is now US Secretary of State. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

gillibrand

I added "(designate)" after her name in the succession boxes. she isn't senator yet. this label can be removed when she takes the oath of office. EATC (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama

Based on a suggestion on Talk:Barack Obama, a new baby Wikiproject has been formed:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama

Please check it out, watchlist it, join and sign up. Let's get some GAs and FAs going out of this! :) GoneAwayNowAndRetired (C)(T) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seniority and "current"

I believe its not necessary to mention her junior position as senator when talking about her senate career in the lead as it didn't matter much anyway. Seniority as a whole does, but not so much in the state. Former senators don't have that written in their articles either, so I think its negligible. The infobox right now rightfully doesn't use it and Wikipedia doesn't use junior and senior senators anymore anyway. As for saying she's the "current" SoS, I believe it's good enough to say she is the 67th. All former ones are called former ones and the text as well as the infobox are clear. I propose a change. Hekerui (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both points. I also don't even think "67th" makes sense in the lead – while people have some association with presidential numbers, especially after Bushes 41 and 43, nobody knows or cares how many Secretaries of X there have been. But the other current cabinet secretary articles seem to be worded this way. Although if kept, this article should be changed to "..., serving under ..." rather than "... under ...", as right now if taken literally we're saying Obama has had 67 different Sec States! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's true! Hekerui (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried getting rid of the 'current' and 'junior', but User:Tajm just changed it right back. No discussion here, no edit summary. Sigh. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

New official portrait

I think the new portrait should be used, but I can't find a high resolution version. Someone else? Hekerui (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much better image, but yes the resolution's too low. We've had the same problem on the Joe Biden article. Clearly the Obama administration is screwing around with all this unimportant stimulus stuff and not placing a high enough priority on putting out good-quality official photos for Wikipedia to use. Shame on them! ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I know lol Found it, they just put it up. Do you upload or anyone? My computer is too old. Hekerui (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, good work finding it, I've put it in there now. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also updated the thumbnail in Template:Hillary Rodham Clinton to use the new photo, using the medium-lower-resolution version that User:RSzeliga89 uploaded. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the new photo. Personally I don't care about the resolution, I'm so glad to have a new pic! Tvoz/talk 23:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize that it is customary to use the most recent official photograph. But personally, I think that this is a much better photo than the official one, particularly if it is cropped. Esn (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt that candids are often much more expressive that portraits, and that photo is in the article. But as you say, for the top image we always use the most recent official photo for the position being currently held. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Where Secretary of State developments will go

It's already clear that we'll need a place for ongoing developments of HRC and the Dept of State to accumulate as they happen, and this BLP shouldn't be it. If there's one known behavior about WP, it's that current events tend to get put in regardless of how important they later turn out to be. If you look at past Secretary of State BLP articles, Colin Powell's time was covered in 12 or so paragraphs, mostly short; Madeleine Albright, in 7 paragraphs; Warren Christopher in 11 choppy ones; if you go back to Cyrus Vance, it's all done in two! So as always, recentism reveals itself.

I've now activated the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article (previously a redirect; equivalents exist for GWB, Clinton, and Reagan), and I think that should be the best place to accumulate what goes on during HRC's time in State. After all, she's conducting foreign policy not on her own behalf, but for the administration as a whole. This BLP article would then just summarize the most important developments, or the ones were she played an unusually major role, or the ones where her actions reflect one of the themes of the overall biography (such as linking women's rights and U.S. foreign policy, for likely example).

There is an alternative, which would be to create a dedicated article to HRC's secretaryship. Until very recently, the Condoleezza Rice BLP's Secretary of State section had over 100 paragraphs in it! There are a lot of Condi fans out there, and some of them got overenthusiastic it would seem. Then this was all spun off to Condoleezza Rice's tenure as Secretary of State, and the main article section is now done to 3 paragraphs. So we could create an equivalent article for HRC ... but I have the feeling that a lot of what's in that Condi subarticle, really belongs in the Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration article.

Anyway, we don't have to decide right away, but for now I've main-ref'd this article's Sec State section to Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration, and moved a recent appointment contribution into that. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Later update

User:Ism schism has been adding too-detailed accounts of HRC's travels to this section. For example:
"In March 2009, Clinton made her first trip as secretary to Israel.[295] During this time, Clinton announced that the US government will dispatch two officials to the Syrian capital to explore Washington's relationship with Damascus.[296]"
"On March 5, 2008, Clinton attended the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels.[297] At this meeting, Clinton proposed including Iran at a conference on Afghanistan. Clinton said the proposed conference could be held on March 31 in the Netherlands.[298]"
There are going to be dozens and dozens such trips, announcements, and proposals during her time as Sec State. We can't possibly accumulate them here in this article as they happen. This article should only include the most important developments from a biographical perspective. Imagine reading this article 10 years from now; will a proposal to hold a conference on March 31 in the Netherlands be important? No. So I've moved this material to the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article, which is trying to keep comprehensive track of developments in U.S. foreign policy around the globe. The other alternative is setting up an equivalent to the Condoleezza Rice's tenure as Secretary of State article and detail everything there, but it seems to me that would overlap the foreign policy article too much. In any case, this kind of stuff can't go here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• As Clinton's milestones are noted in multiple worldwide media, her tenure as Secretary of State should have its own article. As the sections moved above show, there is a lot of notable information about Clinton's tenure (already) to merit an article of its own. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people are getting it. User:ScienceApologist has added "Her next trip was to Europe and the Middle East where she was reported to have been received warmly by foreign journalists and diplomats.[295]" Do you have any idea how many trips she's going to go on in the next four years? For every one of these, are we going to add to the main article that she was received warmly? This would be akin to listing every vote she ever cast in the "Senator" section. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a single sentence about her "second trip" which is essentially to Europe and the Middle East. Hope it's not too excessive (it doesn't seem to be to me). ScienceApologist (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ten years from now, will anyone remember or care about this trip? That's the question to ask. I left the bit about the first trip in because there was some symbolic importance to where she went first. I don't think there's any symbolic importance to where she went second. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to invoke fortune telling or anything, but I predict that in ten years, the trips early on in her tenure will probably be remembered cumulatively as a single event. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Each of Hillary's trips has been documented by mulitiple reliable sources, from the start, step by step, until its conslusion. As such, each documented milestone should be noted for each trip. Also, as her monthly milestones continue to be documented by multiple reliable sources - there is a need for a seperate article concerning Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• You are confusing verifiability with notability. Just because every step of each of her trips is reported by news organizations, doesn't mean they all have to be included in Wikipedia. Every day news organizations report many things that don't need to be in, and don't get in, Wikipedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First Lady Title

Last time I checked being a first lady is not a formal position and I am not sure why Wikipedia is misinforming people by posting this under the persons picture like it is a formal position. There is also "In office" underneath the title. This is unprofessional and misinformation and should be removed from underneath the picture of the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.211 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In what way is it "misinformation?" faithless (^speak) 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times, check the talk archive. While First Lady is not an office per se, it has many of the properties of one: begin and end dates, clearly defined predecessors and successdors, a title and a budget, etc. Thus it is reasonable to include it in the infobox in this form. The "In office" text is an artifact of the infobox template we use. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, remember that it is the history of the US that First Ladies are "serving" as an official title if not an official position.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Only person in american history to be both First Lady and hold a Cabinet position

That's significant in and of it self. I think that should be in her body paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.139.83 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's stated in the lead: "As Obama's Secretary of State, Clinton is the first former First Lady to serve in a president's cabinet." True, it's not repeated in the body, but we're trying to save space >-) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It is in the body as two separate facts. However the conjoint superlative needs to be in the body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, added to body with cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The following projects and editors have been notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections, Wikipedia:WikiProject Arkansas, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia:WikiProject New York, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands, Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama, Wasted Time R (talk · contribs), Tvoz (talk · contribs), and Mr.grantevans2 (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article for GA Sweeps. I almost passed this article. The images and refs pass. The prose is at a sufficient level for this rating. However, I realized that the article is 80KB of prose. According to WP:SIZE the article needs to be summariezed and shorttened to under 60KB.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony - Readable prose using the "page size" link on the left column of the page, is actually 63K. I think, given the complexity of the subject with several notable careers, we can be forgiven the extra 3K. Tvoz/talk 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have that link and am not sure what the difference is between the number you see and the number I cited above. If it is 63, please chop it to 60 and if it is 80 please chop it to 60. Either way, it needs some refining. You would have to ask someone like SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) about the different measures.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than the size issue, I believe this article is not just of GA quality but of FAC quality as well. Regarding size, using the User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js tool, it is 63 kB (10176 words) "readable prose size". While this is slightly over the 60 Kb / 10,000 words guidelines of WP:SIZE, those are as Tvoz suggests guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Indeed per User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, there are 24 current FA articles longer than it and another 8 FA articles of the same size. Given that, I don't see the need to "chop" this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

24 is fewer than 1%. Basically, you are arguing that it is only larger than more than 99% of the most closely-scrutinized and highly-regarded articles on wikipedia. That does not sound like so good of an argument to me. Your choices are 1. Cut the article down below 60KB and retain GA, 2. Don't cut the article and wait for me to delist it. If you do the latter, you have two choices A. fight at WP:GAR for a reassessment of whether the article was rightly delisted or B. reapply at WP:GAC. If it is only over by 5%, you should be able to chop it down. Doing so will improve its chances at future WP:FACs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony, this is a long, complex biography that runs into balance and neutrality problems as soon as you start cutting it. Biographical subarticles get near-zero readership and are a waste of editors' time to create and maintain. Moreover, is this really the best use of your time here? There are lots worse GA articles that you could try to de-certify. Look at Ted Kennedy, which omits his entire career from 1994 to 2008 and has a woeful lead section. Look at Bruce Springsteen, which is lacking in citations throughout. And I'm sure a bunch of others. Why this? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(od) Here are some example stats on biographical subarticle readership, for April 2009:

• Hillary Rodham Clinton (including redirects): 128,833
• Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton: 529

• Sarah Palin: 200,122
• Early political career of Sarah Palin: 413

• John McCain: 96,681
• House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000: 416

You see these kind of 200:1 or 500:1 or similar ratios throughout WP when you look at WP:Summary style as it applies to BLPs. It's because Google never returns first-screen hits on the subarticles and because readers don't see or click through the "Main article:" xrefs given in the top-level BLPs. I originally took BLP subarticles very seriously: for the John McCain set I got one of them to FA and two to GA, which I think is more than anyone else has done. But this effect has not been rewarded by readership. This is why I've become very resistant to splitting long BLPs of major figures (unless they become president, when of course you have to). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this is GA Sweeps in the initial statement. I understand how low the pageviews are for subarticles. That is not the point. The point is that in a bio article few readers will read the whole article on Hillary anyways. If they want to find out about her Senate career or Presidential campaign, they will skip to that section. If the detail in that section is not sufficient for their interest, they will go to the subarticle. Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 was once something like 100KB. The editors managed to edit it to a manageable level and that article is not nearly as important as the main bio. This bio is highly trafficked and needs to be succinct. The only relevant question is whether this article meets policy, which clearly suggests that 60KB is the cap. Can you please do a little editing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Those readers don't go to the subarticles; our stats prove that. Moving something to a biographical subarticle is effectively the same as deleting it, as 199/200 or 499/500 readers will never see it. (The breakup of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 was done in violation of WP:Summary style, as no summary sections were put into the main article, leaving it all very difficult to follow; so that's hardly a good example of anything.) In articles where summary style is used you often see battles over relocation of material to the sub, as other editors aren't fools and realize that's equivalent to deleting it. This article has a well-structured table of contents and readers are quite able to skip or skim sections they are less interested in; that is a much more effective method of content selection than the subarticle splitout. I do not agree that there is any "policy" that "60Kb is the cap", and having put as much blood, sweat, and toil into this article as I have, I am not going to "chop" it to meet this arbitrary cut-off point. Go ahead and de-list it, I'll take it to WP:GAR and contest it there. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If Clinton's life were complete, it might be O.K. to say 63 KB is not so bad. However, Hillary is still a major political figure engaging in national policy at the highest level. There will be more to write. The article will have more added. We need to call for pruning at times like these when articles are being checked up on. I don't mean to be nasty about the guidelines. I am just doing what I believe a participant in Sweeps is suppose to do. The choices are listed above already. I hope you choose to shorten the article. I oversee the WP:CHICAGO project and we have only had about five articles delisted in the history of the project. It is not like I am trying to get this thing delisted. In fact, I once nominated it for GA. I am just trying to follow policy here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I say below, you're taking a "probably" guideline and elevating it to hard-and-fast policy, which I don't think is appropriate. As for the future, the article is growing very slowly. Almost all new developments go into Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration, which is growing much faster. And I don't know why WP:CHICAGO is governing this article; she left Illinois at age 18 and hasn't been back. But you gotta do what you gotta do. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO does not govern the article. We do count her in our stats and if I have to delist her, it will be a loss for the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the actual WP:SIZERULE language, it says "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". Consider me invoking the "probably" (not "policy"!) and "scope of a topic" parts of that guideline. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, how do you get readership including redirects?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't (it's a limitation of the stats tool). I just get them and add them in manually for cases where I know there's a frequently-used redirect. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you really find all the redirects in the "What links here" link or are these just the main redirects?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

On a separate issue, a Checklinks run reveals lots of problems with deadlinks. I'm starting to work through them, see which are real, which have moved, which are gone, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've run dabfinder and resolved the only issue it found. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking those things. I don't usually look at those as part of my Sweeps reviews and I should.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now fixed about 20 problems found by the Checklinks run. I believe what's left (mostly "blue" CNN links) are all false reports, i.e. the link actually works. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the article for other MOS conformance issues. I fixed a couple of non-breaking spaces and measurement conversion items, but in general I think it's in good shape. Actually since the last FAC, the only significant changes have been to the 2008 presidential campaign section and the addition of the Sec State section. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of size discussion

In deciding whether to trim the article, fork portions, or leave it, I think we need to consider what we would be cutting. As I look at the article, I just don't see where the 3K would come from. Sure, you might be able to cut it some around the margins, but I don't think there's 3K worth of fat. As for forking, what likely candidates are that could reasonably stand alone? -Rrius (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pruning page size is like watching your weight or doing regular chores for a BLP. If everytime the article gets 5% over larger than more than 99% of all FACs we say that isn't so bad then what happens when it is 10% over and larger than 99.5% of all FACs. I am not an editor of the content. I will not be contributing tothe decision on what to fork and what to trim. I am just saying the article is likely to find itself delisted, if some action is not taken soon. When your wife or mother tells you it is time to trim the shrubs the point is not that it they look O.K. and don't need to be trimmed that much. Just take a little off the top and the sides and I will be happy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe either "chopping" or "pruning shrubs" is the appropriate model for article size in this situation. As I said above, I plan to appeal your coming delisting at community WP:GAR, and I believe I can put forward a strong case. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Should all editors decide to take no corrective action, I wish you well at GAR, where the community can decide. I also welcome community input here and if the community feels that pruning is not necessary. I would take that advice into consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Community GAR

As a part of sweeps, I have asked that this article be pruned back to 60KB of readable prose. The involved editors have argued against the necessity of such pruning and stated their preparedness for debate at GAR. Arguments have been presented that nearly 1% of FAs are longer than this article. Instead of delisting this article, I have decided to send it to the community for resolution on the necessity of pruning the article to less than 60KB. Hopefully we can achieve consensus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have documentation of her anti-military bias during Clinton administration?

Does anyone have documentation that could be hyperlinked to concerning the way Secretary of State Clinton treated military folk in the Whitehouse during the Clinton administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalism102 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of some unverified rumors or stories from anti-Clinton media outlets that she was nasty to the White House Secret Service detail while she was First Lady (although the Secret Service aren't military). These are often variants of the "Hillary threw a lamp at Bill" rumor (see this Snopes entry for the tale on that), for example that Hillary threw a book at a Secret Service agent. In any case, none of them come close to passing the WP:V and WP:RS bars for inclusion here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

About the name

Why's the article called Hilary Rodham Clinton instead of just Hilary Clinton? I think having only her first and last names are enough for the title, like every other person's article on Wikipedia. Typing Hilary Clinton does link to this article so this is the best-known Hilary Clinton on the encyclopedia. So once again, why add one of her middles names? Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not her middle name, it's her last name before marriage, and she makes a real point of using it, as do newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post on first reference. The article name has been discussed several times here in the past, including two Request for Moves, and the consensus has always been to keep it like it is. See the FAQ above or past Talk archives for more. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think its a bit stupid, since there's no other well-known Hilary Clintons in the encyclopedia. Having it simply as Hilary Clinton is good enough. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 09:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia usually uses the name someone goes by. She has chosen to use all three names in most contexts. For example, the Department of State website uses Rodham. That's about as official as it gets. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for changes towards FA

I noticed a few things about the article that have nothing to do with the actual information in it. I have copy edited the lede to improve prose by reducing choppy sentences, removing redundant wording and to make reading smoother. Lots of "She is" and "In (such and such date). I added her name in place of "She" in different ways in order not to be redundant.

Lede info box image has been altered for contrast, brightness, color and composition. All simple things that I hope did not overstep any consensual bounds I might not have seen in the discussions.

I propose a few changes that are more bold however and seek discussion on the value of the changes I wish to attempt.

• Formatting references and notes separately with a bibliography, is something articles of this size should consider as important for readers to distinguish between a reference and a footnote which should also be referenced, and this manner allows that. It also clearly separates the citations from the additional noted information.

• Images should all be looked at for public domain status and if fair use is used, make sure a reliable argument for use is made on the upload page. Some images need improvements such as the Clinton home picture which is out of alignment and needs contrast etc improvements. Perhaps a few could be discussed for replacement with images available at Commons.

• References should all be double checked for reliability and self publication etc.

• Further copy editing of article prose, check wikilinks, available subjects red linked if possible to become full articles.

I hope this is something that is acceptable and hope to see the article to FA in the near future.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhm....there are three seperate gallope poll graphics. That cannot be necessary. For encyclopedic use the latest gallop poll would be the most relevant.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look at this yet - and it certainly seems that you are acting in good faith in trying to improve the article - but I think it would have been a good idea to wait for some feedback from others, including the regular editors here, before implementing so many changes that affect the structure of the article. This article has been shepherded through four successful GA reassesments, not easily, and I think this kind of major change should have been discussed. It's the summer, and people's response time may not be as fast as usual. Tvoz/talk 05:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not do everything at once and expected that not everything would stand. I did begin a discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm back from a two-week vacation, will start looking at the changes made here tonight. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Start of comments on changes.

First, you added forced image sizes to some of the photos in the article text portion. This is discouraged by MOS:IMAGES unless there are special reasons (such as for the poll charts). This would get flagged right away at WP:FAC, unless there is such a reason that would have to be stated. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your changes to the lead section made it more than four paragraphs. WP:LEAD is quite specific that four paragraphs is the limit; this would get flagged at FAC right away too. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal of the 1992 portrait. It's the only image available from that period that shows her close-up. Your edit comment "Image seems decorative, although of the subject in 1992, is a portrait the best to use? Seems a little out of place" does not seem convincing to me. One of the purposes of images in a BLP is to show what the subject looked like at various times in their life, and this does that. I don't see it as decorative at all.

I understand your motivation in separating "Footnotes" from "References" where the former contains explanatory material. However, I think the section is better called "Notes" than "Footnotes", since many people associate footnotes with everything pointed to by superscript numbers. A more substantial problem is that a bunch of the remaining "References" also contain explanatory material after the cite. I think a more thorough job of isolating these will need to be done.

I don't really like your change to link book cite titles to Google Books entries (which you then stopped doing partway through). None of these books are in "full access" mode, which is the only time that I do this. Instead, they are in "limited preview", "snippet", or "no access" mode, which is not of great help to the reader. The Bibliography gives more than enough information for the reader to find the book in Google, Amazon, or at their library; I don't think a link adds anything, and unless it's blessed somewhere by the MoS, it's likely to cause objections at FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your position on the Gallup poll charts. A huge part of her biography is describing how the American public reacted to her. If you are familiar with the biographical literature on HRC (such as Bernstein and Gerth/van Natta) you know they spend a lot of time on this. So too do the scholarly articles on HRC as First Lady. And a picture is worth a thousand words. To make the first two poll charts hard to access (by having to click through to the bare file page) is of no service to the reader, and is a violation of MoS and would also draw fire at FAC. You say above "there are three seperate gallope poll graphics. That cannot be necessary. For encyclopedic use the latest gallop poll would be the most relevant". But it is necessary to show how her public support plummeted with the early controversies of the Clinton administration and the failed health care initiative (those pesky universal health care proposals sure do cause trouble ...), and then rose with sympathy during the Lewinsky scandal, among other twists and turns. Indeed, her public approval ratings during her time as First Lady are more significant than during her time as Senator, and your decision to hide the two older of them is just WP:RECENTISM I'm afraid. I've restored the poll chart images the way they were. Now, if you are concerned about there being three charts in the article, and would rather have one that covers the entire 1992-2009 period, we can discuss that. But we cannot make this data hard to find. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Amadscientist, I've now gone through your changes to the lead section. I'm going to be very direct and honest with you here: your changes made the section worse, not better. While in some cases you did improve the flow, you made introduced several factual errors or misleading statements:

• it was more the content of her remarks, not just that she was the first student commencement speaker, that gained her national attention in 1969
• saying she was in the "Class of 1973" at Yale Law School is a bit misleading (and unnecessary): she started out in the Class of 1972, but then stretched her three years out to four in order to be in synch with Bill's time there
• she didn't start using "Clinton" as part of her name until early 1982, so we cannot use it to describe events that happened in 1977 or 1979-80; this is a significant point, because her not using her husband's name was thought to be one of the reasons for Bill's defeat in his first gubernatorial re-election campaign
• the other companies she was on the board of directors of aren't nearly as prominent as Wal-Mart
• she was not a target in all of the investigations of the Clinton administration, just some of them
• her marriage was a subject of huge speculation throughout the Lewinsky scandal regardless of whether or not Bill got impeached in the House, so to add the latter is a bit misleading
• she was not elected Senator from New York in January 2000! I don't know where you got that idea. She was elected in November 2000, took office in January 2001

Even on matters of style, your changes introduced several problems:

• five paragraphs in lead, over the limit of four specified in WP:LEAD
• twice being a little unclear over the difference between U.S. Senator from New York and a member of the New York State Senate
• using William Jefferson Clinton instead of Bill Clinton – the common form is better here because it was and is almost universally used
• giving an excessive description of Chappaqua, when we don't mention at all Chicago, Park Ridge, Fayetteville, or Little Rock, which are all the places she lived in Illinois and Arkansas (I agree the previous text needed to make clear that she moved to the state not New York City, which it now does)
• this ungrammatical, run-on sentence: "In the Senate, she initially supported the Bush administration on some foreign policy issues, including a vote for the Iraq War Resolution, subsequently opposing the administration on its conduct of the war in Iraq, and most domestic issues." It's better to have a couple of shorter sentences and have an extra "she" or two than to try to mash it all into one sentence like this.

Anyway, I didn't revert all your changes, but instead tried to use as many as I could, but again to be direct you should be more careful in the future when working on high-profile material such as this. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I've got my doubts about altering the government-issued photograph of her "for contrast, brightness, color and composition". Cropping yes, but I'm not sure about the rest. If the government photographer thought he or she got the photograph to the point where it best looked like Hillary, who are we to say otherwise? Do you know exactly what her skin color was that day? Also, you went wrong in altering the two Rose Law Firm photographs. You jacked up the contrast and brightness to give the building a deep, bright red which it does not have in real life. It's true I took those photos on a cloudy, somewhat misty morning, but if you look at other photos of the building on the net, such as this AP one or this Geocities one or this one at the firm's website, you'll see the building is neither bright nor a deep red, even in sunlight. I've restored both of those photos back to how they were. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into the detail that you provided, but will say, some of the things you brought up were relevent and some were just mistakes (like the run-on sentance. It was tired) and some may were indeed correct such as refering to her as the class of 1973. It is the year she graduated and is the "Class' she is listed with regardless of "Extending " her stay there to be with Bill. Also the use of the full name of Mr. Clinton. You used a bit of POV with those changes but I am in no way challenging anything. I left your changes as they were fine in large part even if a good portion is simple opinion. (color, contrast etc. Although reverting your own images is something I can certainly agree with regardless of my opinion of quality)

I think the article can use more eyes and more editing, but I recognize you as the major contributer of the article and can work with your changes that I feel were indeed made in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cultural and Political Image

In reviewing these polls and comments by professorial types, I noticed that this is slanted against Hillary. There is a bias against her because she's female and none of the information contained in this section really speaks to that.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also in the section on the presidential race, there is nothing about her stellar performance in the debates, with Hillary always getting the tough questions, then Barack Obama got the exact same question and he always started off by answering, "I agree with Hillary." Hillary was an outstanding debater and that should be noted.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the section specifically, but there are some general POV concerns with the article in the notes as well. If you can fix the prose to be more neutral you should feel free to be bold and make the changes. I would try not to balance information tic for tac but see what is the most referenced way the material is presented in other material of the time and since.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude, shut up. Saying she was great is biased.Thakmere (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Much of this section describes the scholarly findings about HRC with respect to polarization and gender aspects. She has brought about a polarized response from the American public; that's just a simple fact borne out by political science studies. That doesn't mean she's good or bad, and many successful and "great" American political figures have also triggered a polarized response from the public. But it is important to discuss as it characterizes much of her political career. As for the comment "There is a bias against her because she's female and none of the information contained in this section really speaks to that", I disagree strongly. The entire paragraph that begins "Burrell's study found women consistently rating Clinton ..." speaks to this, and the second half of the last paragraph beginning with "By December 2007, communications professor Jamieson observed that there was a large amount of misogyny present about Clinton on the Internet ..." also speaks to this, as does part of the first paragaph of the section. Indeed, I'd say about 35 or 40 percent of the section overall deals with how she's been treated as a female. As for the presidential campaign section, it does indirectly allude to her being a good debater by noting a "rare poor debate performance". To get into the whole "the press was easier on Obama than Hillary" is a possible addition, however, if someone can come up with some really solid sources to back it up (from the Pew Research Center, perhaps). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Congolese student incident

Who ever deleted this message was wrong; it was a major incident as well as her comments in Nigeria. "On August 13, 2009, Clinton reacted with fury when a Congolese student asked her what her husband, "Mr Clinton", thought of a Chinese trade deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Clinton looked bemused at the question and replied, "My husband is not secretary of state, I am...If you want my opinion I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband". The incident was played in newsrooms around the world. It later turned out the question was mistranslated and the student had intended to ask what Mr Obama thought." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.27.174 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A "major incident" if only because of the coverage of it. Not at all imporatant in her biography. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository for news stories. Every news mention of Clinton in the recent news is not necessarily important to the life of the living person.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Gareth E Kegg and Amadscientist – this is a minor, transient news story with no lasting significance. Every public official makes occasional statements that generate of flurry of attention and then are forgotten. Remember HRC's 2004 saying that Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis"? Or her 2006 speech at a Martin Luther King Day church conference when she said "When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation"? Or her 2006 remark that young people have "a sense of entitlement after growing up in a culture that has a premium on instant gratification [and] young people today think work is a four-letter word"? These remarks all created brief periods of news coverage and then were forgotten. The same is true here. If for some reason a year from now the Congolese student incident turns out to have lasting impact, it can be added back in, but that's very unlikely. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The comments in Africa were major headlines and a significant part of her tenure as State Secretary. Wikipedia can react to major news incidents- perhaps in future one line would be enough, but for now I recommend keeping the statement and expanding on her role in the Lockerbie Bomber's release by Scots. Her Imperial Highness (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The comments in Africa were not significant at all, just a momentary flash that made momentary news. You do not have consensus to keep adding this material to the article. Gareth E Kegg, Amadscientist, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (per a reversion), and myself are all opposed to it, and only you support it (and your IP address alias, 129.107.27.174). Nor does her comment on the Lockerbie release deserve inclusion – this belongs in that article, and in perhaps in the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article, but not here. This article cannot contain every routine thing that HRC does as Sec State, it would triple in size. And most of what she does is speak for the U.S. Government, which is why Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration is indicated as the "main" article for this section. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely - neither belongs in her biography. Tvoz/talk 03:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is important that Ms Clinton's actions as State Secretary are included. She attacked in an over the top manner on international tv on the mere suggestion that her successful husband, the President Clinton, would tell her what to say. This is part of her biography as it her personal reaction rather than the orders of Barack. Her Imperial Highness (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You have added this back into the article again, with the edit comment "Wikipedia is not a democracy so 4:1 means nothing. This is part of her biography and should be expanded". No, WP is not a democracy, but it does operate by consensus, and with Tvoz's opposition it's now five editors opposed and only you in support. You don't have anything close to consensus and are guilty of edit warring. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed this material and left a note on the editor's page. Consensus is clear here, and I hope we don;t have to waste everyone's time (no pun intended) in ANI. Tvoz/talk 23:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Paul litigation

Why is there no mention of the 8 year ongoing civil litigation against Hillary and Peter Paul? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.187.144 (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is described in United States Senate election in New York, 2000#Hollywood fundraiser. It's not important enough to mention here since his action against Hillary has always been a nuisance lawsuit and was dismissed by a judge in 2006 for lack of evidence. That was appealed and the dismissal was held up. The only action he currently has going is against Bill, not Hillary. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tenure

The Tenure section is pathetic, it says nothing of her tenure. While I understand that the bulk of the U.S. foreign policy (which includes the tenure of Clinton) has its own page, can we update the Tenure section to provide an account of significant milestones in her tenure. I'm not asking for 10-15 paragraphs, but 3-5 would do (for her term as SoS). Reading the section, would anyone know what Clinton has done as SoS? Rick Evans (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What's there now is about all that can be usefully said so far – the themes that she began her time as Sec State with. It's too soon to know which of her other actions taken so far will turn out important, or which internal debates within the administration she proved most or least influential on, or what changes she has brought about within American foreign policy, and so forth. This we will know better years from now, when books are written and memoirs published and so forth. And remember that she's only 7 1/2 months into a 48-month tenure. If we had 3-5 paragraphs now on this, how many would we have four years from now? 19-32 paragraphs? That would be way too long. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

New article on HRC's tenure as Secretary of State

I've become convinced that it's time that Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State have its own article, for these reasons:

1. There's been enough written now in mainstream news sources about the character of her time as secretary, and about actions that have been specific to her (and not just U.S. foreign policy as a whole)
2. The Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article that was supposed to be the "main" for this subject, has itself been split up into multiple pieces, and it's very difficult to follow Hillary's actions there
3. It's often necessary to have a subarticle that will accrete material as current events happen.

Thus, I've created Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. (The name is modelled after the Condoleezza Rice's tenure as Secretary of State article, the only other example of a cabinet secretary BLP subarticle that I know of.) I started by putting in material currently in this article, material that was rejected from this article due to being too detailed or otherwise inappropriate, and some material from Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration. I've then added a bunch of new material, that I had taken note of during the past year. Parts of the article are still rough, and for sure more work needs to be done and more topics covered, but it's a start and I think it validates the need for a separate article at this point. And which a few other editors have wanted all along, as prior comments indicate. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton's visit to Pakistan

When she recently visited Pakistan, her intentions were not very clear but later she proved to be just another american politician. So, despite all her efforts to laugh at some matters, as she obviously didn't know that Pakistanis are so well informed, the visit was a major failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.129.76.13 (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This article doesn't really state that the visit was either a success or a failure. The Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article does quote a Pakistani politician who thought the visit was a positive development overall. Do you have a strong source supporting your different viewpoint here? And also, don't ever change other editors' past comments on talk pages, as you did with a separate edit. That's a definite no-no. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Picture

Will someone please remove the comments that show up when you move your mouse cursor over her picture. They are quite offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoh8r (talk • contribs) 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What comments? All I see it saying is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". If your browser is picking up the "ALT" text, which starts "Formal pose of middle-aged white woman with shortish blonde hair ...", that's just a description of what the photo shows for the visually impaired or technologically limited reader. It's required by WP:ALT. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is the IPA pronunciation of her name really necessary? --Saaga (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but there are IPA-enthusiast editors who put them everywhere. If you take it out, it'll just end up coming back in further down the road ... Wasted Time R (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Liberty Union Party

Found this in another article. It's rather trivial, but I wonder if anybody can dig up more on it with good sources (I'll try).

'2008 Vermont Liberty Union Party Presidential primary[20]: Brian P. Moore - 178 (44.61%) Barack Obama* - 25 (6.27%) Hillary Rodham Clinton* - 15 (3.76%) Ralph Nader* - 5 (1.25%) Eugene Victor Debs* - 1 (0.25%) Patrick Leahy* - 1 (0.25%) John McCain* - 1 (0.25%) Richard Norton* - 1 (0.25%) Ron Paul* - 1 (0.25%) Morgan Phillips* - 1 (0.25%) Others - 170 (42.61%)

Thanks Шизомби (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's meaningless. The Liberty Union Party is a socialist, anti-war party that was determining who to support in 2008. Brian Moore got a large plurality of the votes; he ended up in the Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008 as the candidate of Socialist Party USA. The two prominent Dem candidates each got some stray votes, with Hillary less as she was hated on by much of the anti-war crowd, and other stray votes went to various odds choices (a libertarian, a dead person, etc). This doesn't prove that Hillary is a socialist or that Obama is a socialist. It does kind of indicate that Moore is a socialist, which he in fact is. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest merge with Hillary Rodham senior thesis

I say the following on that talk page:

This thesis appears to have no per se notability, but is only relevant through its connection to the Clinton's---and only after their entering the White House. Further, the length of the treatment is excessively long and detailed, IMO. I suggest that this page be shortened to the bare minimum and then be merged with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I duplicate here because the "discuss" links lead here. Michael Eriksson (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Will discuss there. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

split article- Public image of Hillary Clinton and/or Early life and career of Hillary Clinton

This article is really long, I think her pre-First Lady days should be an article in itself. There is enough information there.--Levineps (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before, including a long discussion a few months ago at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hillary Rodham Clinton/3. The result for now is to keep it the way it is. I still believe that biographical subarticles are to be avoided whenever possible, due to the extremely low readership they get and the heavy editorial burden they impose in maintaining two parallel versions of the content. And note that a different editor now wants to make this article even longer, by merging another one into it! You can't make everyone happy in this biz. I'd also note that longer biographical articles are the trend in WP; Nikita Khrushchev recently made FA at 85 kB (13743 words) readable prose size, which is a whole lot longer than this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Wilma was born prematurely and weighed only 4.5 pounds. Again, because of racial segregation, she and her mother were not permitted to be cared for at the local hospital. It was for whites only. There was only one black doctor in Clarksville, and the Rudolph's budget was tight, so Wilma's mother spent the next several years nursing Wilma through one illness after another: measles, mumps, scarlet fever, chicken pox and double pneumonia. But, she had to be taken to the doctor when it was discovered that her left leg and foot were becoming weak and deformed. She was told she had polio, a crippling disease that had no cure. The doctor told Mrs. Rudolph that Wilma would never walk.

2008 nomination fight

There is no mention of the critical fact her support for IRaq war resolution versus obama's stand on the war cost her the nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.31.3.197 (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The article does say that around 2005, "Her stance [on Iraq] caused frustration among those in the Democratic Party who favored immediate withdrawal.[213]" But you're right, it was a steady underlying factor behind her losing support to Obama during 2007. I'll look at adding something to this effect. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking citations with bibliography

After attempting to find a reference with mixed success, I have begun the process of linking the inline citations with the bibliography, starting with the Bernstein citations. The articles which I used as a guide to figure out how to do this were Wakefield and Shakespeare, as (a) I haven't done this particular exercise a lot of times and (b) these two articles have proved reliable to me on the few occasions when I had to work out how to do this. I will pick up the task again later, but I mention here in case anyone else wants to have a go, and/or see how I got there. Regards Wotnow (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what problem you're trying to solve. If the footnote says "Bernstein 2007, pp. 17–18." and the bibliography says "Bernstein, Carl, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton (2007) ...", how hard is that to find? Yes, it's a convenience to be able to click directly and go from one to the other, but I can't see that it's a necessity. The disadvantage of doing this is that it adds more templates and complexity and length into the article, and drives its load time even higher. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with your comment. This is the reason I amended only the Bernstein citations, and posted the comment with links to two sample articles from which I derived the method. The Bernstein citations provide a sufficient sample size to demonstrate the suggestion, while limiting the effort. Thus, people can evaluate it, and if it is thought overall to be helpful, continue implementing it. I for one have no strong opinion either way. If the general consensus is that it is not a benefit, it is a straightforward matter to revert my edit.

By the way, reference number 19, Milton, Joyce (1999), contains an odd-looking link to William Morris. I wonder if that's an error, as it's not obvious to me what it's doing there. Regards Wotnow (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, that's supposed to be William Morrow and Company the modern day publisher, not William Morris the 19th century English guy. Have fixed; thanks for the spot. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

An alternative has just occurred to me. One could link only the first occurance of each inline citation. Thus, a reader at (current) reference number 3 in the article's body could click on the inline citation, which takes her or him to "Bernstein 2007, pp. 18, 34". He or she could then check out the Bernstein reference with a simple mouse click. Having done that, s/he could click the back arrow to return to where s/he was reading, all with a seamless effort. A reader is typically only going to check out a given reference once, rather than each time s/he encounters it, so anything after the first citation link is going to be redundant. This actually strikes me as more sensible than how the linking method is currently used (slavishly applied to each occurrance, as if readers will slavishly follow each link - in practice I certainly don't and I doubt many do at all). Now this thought might not have occurred to me but for the above prompting, for which I am grateful. Regards Wotnow (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Doing it on first occurrence is certainly possible, and it would ameliorate the overhead issue. But there are two problems with it. Readers don't typically check out every footnote in consecutive order from the start of the article; they ignore the footnotes, until they run across some statement that they are either curious or skeptical about, then they click on the footnote to see what the source is. Thus this will be a random Bernstein (or whomever) footnote, not the first one, and it won't have the Harvnb link. Also, it's a maintenance problem to even know what the first reference to a given source is, as text is moved around in articles, text is deleted or added, citing is changed, etc. This has always been the problem with the 'first occurrence' approach to a related issue, whether to link newspaper or broadcaster names in footnotes (such as The New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, etc). It's very hard to keep track of where the first occurrences are. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sahirrama, 26 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The bottom of the page calls Clinton the incumbent for the New York Senate seat, when she is not. This should be removed.

Sahirrama (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The only instances of the word incumbent are associated with her current post as Secretary of State. Please provide the text you would like to have changed. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The "incumbent" marking was referring to Clinton's status going into the 2006 Senate election. Election result listings often indicate if a candidate is an incumbent. But User:Blue Caterpillar has already removed the marking, indicating two separate readers were confused by the difference between what she was in 2006 and what she is in 2010. So out it will remain. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm... this is vandalism, right?

So, Hillary Clinton SAT on Wal-Mart? Smells like vandals... RoryReloaded 05:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It says "She sat on the board of directors of Wal-Mart and several other corporations." This is common usage, see many other examples of this usage of 'sat'. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

HRC's role in MMfA

Since this issue has grown to the point of mediation over at the MMfA article, I thought I'd check how this article treats her involvement. I think "advised and nurtured" is overstating her early role and -- judging from relevant talkpage archive -- is only based on HRC's speech (on youtube) and an unreliable source, Clinton-hater Gerth. At the very least, her claim to have helped start it should be qualified -- politicians do not have the same standard for truth as WP does. For a side discussion of the Gerth-VN book, see this MMfA talkpage thread on it. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The original source is actually an article by Glenn Thrush in Newsday, then confirmed by Gerth. Besides having the temerity to closely examine the dealings of the Clintons, what evidence in reliable sources do you have that he is not a reliable reporter?--Drrll (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The only references I see are to the Gerth book. Where is the Newsday article? There is no link here nor at the MMfA article or talkpage, only your quote from it -- which cites an anonymous source. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just saying that the "advised and nurtured" part is actually from the Newsday article, cited in the Gerth book. No, there is no free link to the Newsday article. The anonymous source in the article just says that "David is immensely valuable to Hillary". The "advised and nurtured" bits are from reporting in the article, as quoted on the MMfA Talk page. Drrll (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read pretty much every reasonable book written on HRC. The Gerth-Van Natta bio is one of the best. It came out at the same time as the Carl Bernstein bio, which is also one of the best, and both of them are heavily used as sources for this article. Of the two, the Bernstein one is slightly more sympathetic overall to Hillary than the G-VN one, but that's okay, it varies according to particular topic area and they are both well within the neutral range (there are plenty of books about her that aren't). The argument against Gerth seems to be that he and the NYT broke the Whitewater story ... well, tough. That's what reporters and newspapers are supposed to do, investigate possible illegal actions, abuses of office, crooked behavior, dodgy deals, etc., no matter who's in power. I see no reason to doubt G-VN's assessment of HRC's role in Media Matters. The key motivational context in this article is: "Looking to establish a 'progressive infrastructure' to rival that of American conservatism, ..." Perceiving herself and Bill as long a victim of the conservative infrastructure, she was looking to form a counterweight. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, the Gerth-VN book is far from reasonable -- the authors are neither primary nor reliable secondary. Your dismissal of the arguments against Gerth & the NYT's coverage of Whitewater is in line with the anti-Clinton crowd. So much for your neutrality, eh? Anyone seriously interested in the full story should see Gene Lyons' book "Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater" in which Gerth and Van Natta are the main antagonists, discussed in-depth at PBS:Frontline (excerpted from Harper's) -- starting with Gerth's pieces for the NYT which were "not particularly fair or balanced stories that combine a prosecutorial bias and the art of tactical omission.." Also check out criticism from Eric Alterman, The Nation & the Village Voice, among others who are neither pro-Clinton nor anti-Clinton, as a rule. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitewater was a legitimate matter for investigation, and in its broadest scope it led to a number of convictions in Arkansas. And newspaper reporters are supposed to be a little prosecutorial, otherwise they never get anywhere and just end up recycling government pap and corporate press releases. Now, there's more to the Whitewater story and the attacks on the Clintons than just the NYT. Did the Independent Counsel investigation of Bill and Hillary get heavy-handed and go on longer than it needed to? Yes. Was there, as Lyons and Conason would say, a 10-year campaign to destroy the Clintons among a network of forces (Scaife, American Spectator, WSJ editorial page, Limbaugh, some Congressional Republicans, etc)? Most definitely. But G-VN were not part of that crowd or attack, then or now. As for what Alterman, The Nation, and the Village Voice think about G-VN, they don't get to decide who's neutral or not, anymore than Bernard Goldberg, the National Review, and the Weekly Standard do. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually Lyons and others make a credible case that Gerth was a part of that crowd, i don't know about his co-author. Anyway the mediation process seems to be working on a compromise for the MMfA article, one which should affect how the information is presented here as well. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede that I haven't read Fools for Scandal and I should at least give it a browse, it's in my local library. Back to WP, if the proposed compromise there is "Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow the lead of conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals," then I have no problem with that, since it's the same as what this article has said all along. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise pending the mediation decision, I've left "advised" but taken out "and nurtured" as this second part is what's caused so much debate, i think. I note that the Gerth book is referenced many times throughout this article. On uncontested info I don't see this as a problem right now, but any controversial info should be confirmed by reliable secondary source -- I could be wrong but I believe that BLP concerns warrant this higher degree of reliability. And Newsday's Thrush (now at Politico) is another Hillary-basher and therefore inadequate to substantiate the connection, imo. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(Time passes.) I'm okay with "nuturing" being either in or out. I was hoping the molehill mountaineering at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Media Matters for America was over by now, but I see it's still dragging on. Trust me on one thing, even Brock and HRC don't care about this question as much as you guys do! As for controversial material, I've long had the practice of trying to double-source anything of that kind, although I won't swear I did it everywhere and of course what is and is not 'controversial' is often in the eye of the beholder. As for G-VN being used a lot, during one of this article's FAC drives, a concerted effort was made to replace as many newspaper/magazine/broadcaster sources with book sources as possible. That's because book cites are valued higher in the RS pecking order, because short-form book footnotes are smaller and quicker to load than "cite news" footnotes, and because book cites don't suffer from linkrot and behind-the-paywall problems. So as you say, a lot of all the book cites are for run-of-the-mill bio facts. If you point out any cites of G-VN (other than the MMfA one) that give you agita, we can discuss. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

More time passes. That mediation process seems to have gone moribund without a final wrapping up, but there was wide consensus on language that matches well with what this article says. I've thus taken off the {{Verify credibility}} tag. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Australia has a new PM

can someone just put in next to that photo of her with kevin rudd, "former". it's a bit embarrassing since he stopped being the PM some time ago now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.125.163 (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

All title descriptions are given as of the period the text or photo is describing, not when the reader is reading. Since Rudd was PM in March 2008 when the photo was taken, the title description is appropriate. "Former" would only be used if Rudd was no longer PM at the time of the photo. To make this clearer, look at, say, the Yalta Conference article. It does not say "former President Franklin D. Roosevelt, former Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and former General Secretary Joseph Stalin" because you are reading it now and they don't hold those positions anymore, it says "President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and General Secretary Joseph Stalin" because that's what they were in February 1945 when the conference took place. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal wealth

Hillary's 2005 reported income, per her 2005 Financial Disclosure Report, was over 4.5 million USD.< http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2005/c001041.pdf > Hillary's 2006 reported income, per her 2006 Financial Disclosure Report, was over 11 million USD. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2006/c001041.pdf> Hillary's income, combined with her husband Bill's, as of 2007 had already exceeded 45 million USD. <http://www.smashedfrog.com/2008/03/hillary-clintons-tax-return.html>Jme0598 (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? I don't see how this can improve the article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jme0598, I don't know where you get your Hillary-only income figures, since those financial disclosure reports include a lot of Bill's earnings (such as the speeches). And the article already describes the Clintons' combined wealth in this period: "In April 2007, the Clintons liquidated a blind trust, that had been established when Bill Clinton became president in 1993, to avoid the possibility of ethical conflicts or political embarrassments in the trust as Hillary Clinton undertook her presidential race.[236] Later disclosure statements revealed that the couple's worth was now upwards of $50 million,[236] and that they had earned over $100 million since 2000, with most of it coming from Bill Clinton's books, speaking engagements, and other activities.[237]" So I don't see anything to add here. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasted Time, the reason why a section about Hillary Clinton's personal wealth should be included is because this is a standard section for political leaders. If you review Clinton's Financial Disclosures, some of Clinton's money is from her husband but most of it is actually political contributions which amount to large sums of money for Ms. Clinton's personal use from groups who have a stake in laws being evaluated for approval or denial in Senate: a standard practice in Washington, DC, which is why many politicians are wealthy. American public, by virtue of being impacted by these same laws has a right to see where Hillary Clinton is getting her income from, accordingly.Jme0598 (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Financial Disclosure Statements from 2005 and 2006 show that income reported in artictle for 2005 and 2006, is jsut Hillary's, and much of it is large sums of money given to her for her own personal use from lobbyists who have a stake in laws being evaluated for approval or denial in Senate. 173.75.221.137 (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC) [apparently IP address for Jme0598]

First of all, learn some basic etiquette. You don't remove what someone else has posted on a Talk page, as you did with this edit, even if you disagree with it. Will respond to rest tonight. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "for her own personal use from lobbyists" is not correct statement should read "for her own personal use from interested parties with a stake in legislature Hillary has oversight over"Jme0598 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing two very different things. These financial disclosure reports to the Senate do not describe "political contributions" to the Clintons, but rather show investments that the Clintons have made with their own money that they earned over the years. Most of these investments were not in specific companies, but were in blind trusts, life insurance policies, retirement funds and the like. Political contributions from companies or individuals to Hillary are completely different, and are reported to the FEC not the Senate. And those contributions were not "for her own personal use" at all, but were for her political campaigns (Senate twice, and then President). None of that went to her personal use, and in fact the reverse is true; her presidential campaign went deeply in debt and she ended up spending many millions of her own money on it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)]

Then what you mean to say is HilLary Clinton earned millions of dollars through employment secondary to her job as a US Employee, in 2005 and 2006, that resulted in her receiving large sums of money from interested parties with a stake in legislature Hillary has oversight over. Per Hillary's Financial Disclosure Statements from 2005 and 2005, she did not receive any donations in lieu of being paid directly for her speeches, so all money received for this secondary employment was paid to her for her own personal use.Jme0598 (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The speeches were all made by Bill, not Hillary! See pages 2 and 3 of the 2005 report and pages 2 and 3 of the 2006 report. They all say "(Spouse)" in them. That means Bill. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Then the correct statement is "Hillary Clinton reported in both 2005 and 2006 on her Financial Disclosure Reports for those years, millions of dollars of income USD received for her personal use via her husband Bill's activities with companies and other interested parties who are directly impacted by legislation she is responsible for making changes to. As of 2007, Hillary Clinton and her husband aquired a wide variety of investments in various companies which Hillary Clinton, due to her position, is directly responsible for making changes in legislature that directly impact those companies she and her husbadn have investments in and in turn, the expected returns the Clintons can expect to receive from their investments.Jme0598 (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the correct statement is nothing beyond what the article already says, unless there are reliable, mainstream sources that indicate that Hillary's Senate votes or Senate actions regarding certain corporations or industry groups were altered or influenced by those corporations or groups having hired Bill to give speeches to them. And a quick look at WP:V and WP:RS will tell you that a rant on the Smashed Frog blog does not qualify. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasted time, by referring to my remarks as a "rant" you are now in direct violation of Wikipedia's rules of conduct about treating others with respect. Also, you are in violation of Wikipedia's rules by your making what appear to be defamatory remarks suggesting that Hillary Clinton is engaging in some version of insider trading, which is what you said. I did not say that. My remarks are a statement of fact, are not new, nor are they original. All senators oversees all legislation which drive pricing and returns in the stock market as a normal part of their job because senators are hired for the express purposes of creating new laws. Your remarks extending Hillary's behavior to insider trading constitute "new and original research" that you conducted based upon my remarks, as your way to complete some perceived argument in your mind you've decided I've made that she is engaging in illegal trading behavior, an argument which just isn't there. Cease and desist.Jme0598 (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Rant" was a reference to the blogger, not you (unless you are one and the same). "Insider trading" has been first mentioned by you, not me, and is a ludicrous notion given that the Clintons' investments were highly illiquid. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Be more mindful of Wikipedia rules of conduct from now on.Jme0598 (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)