Talk:Living History (book)

Any info on what the book actually tells us? It's content? Jamandell (d69) 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to read it again if I was to put up a detailed summary here, but sketchily it tells the story of her life, from growing up in a Methodist household with Republican parents, then waking up to the Democratic party (after starting work for the Republican party), then meeting Bill Clinton at university...Later it explains her struggle with being a first lady (the public image dilemma), her failed job at improving the health system, her struggle over her husband's affair, her rise to senatorship...It's a good read. There are also some revealing snippets about how she likes Seamus Heaney's poetry a lot, and how meeting Robert Mugabe was a most frightful experience. Zigzig20s 06:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! You can tell that I am obviously too lazy to read it myself. I think I shall eventually though. But it's good for people to be able to have a light plot summary in the article, like most other pages on Wikipedia about books. Jamandell (d69) 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm I remember she also says she likes To Kill a Mockingbird a lot too. Anyway - you should read it!Zigzig20s 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Typical partisan garbage, the part about John Edwards and John McCain is completely irrelevant and is obviously inserted by someone who wants to undermine Clinton. Taken out. 152.3.237.100 (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant, but I've modified the wording to clarify that the Edwards/McCain practice of giving explicit cover credit is often the exception not the rule. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why in the world is it relevant? This page is about Hillary Clinton's book, not John Edwards' or John McCain's books. All that's necessary is to say that she didn't advertise her co-author. It's like writing an article about Christianity and including in the introduction, "Christianity believes that Jesus is the savior. However, Judaism and Buddhism do not." It's irrelevant, and in this case it's partisan and undermining. Beta.s2ph (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's comparing her practice in crediting co-writers with those of others. So the right analogy would be to comparative religion. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Article quality is really a B-/C+ 2600:1002:B12C:D238:84D1:7222:3019:F903 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Living History (book). Living History to be redirected to Living history. Jenks24 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Living History (Book) → Living History – The recent move was wrong. The proper noun of this book name is not in conflict with the regular noun of "living history". The article should be moved back to where it was. 2600:1002:B122:148:4CD5:989A:3437:957B (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Living History (book). I think the disambiguator is useful in this instance, since I have often seen "Living History" capitalised when used in its generic sense, but obviously "book" shouldn't be capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Living History (book) for same reasons as Necrothesp In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Living History (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223214333/http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/19/clinton/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/19/clinton/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061024213408/http://www.reason.com/links/links061703.shtml to http://www.reason.com/links/links061703.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522024829/http://www.elle.com/Life-Love/Society-Career-Power/At-the-Pinnacle-of-Hillary-Clinton-s-Career to http://www.elle.com/Life-Love/Society-Career-Power/At-the-Pinnacle-of-Hillary-Clinton-s-Career
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080128004352/http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/summer03/review14.shtml.htm to http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/summer03/review14.shtml.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)