With regards to Very Long tag However there might be a lot to say about Senator Clinton The wikipedia Yom Kippur War article is long yet it was a very short event of days compared to Clinton s nearly 60 years of life Vote Do not shorten for the sake of shortening I think the Very Long tag may date back to before when material was split off into subarticles The article is still kind of long even after that but manageable I think However imagine what will happen if she gets elected President All that has come before will be dwarfed by the new material to come Regarding the CV section that you I was orginally very confused about her background because it takes work to figure out when she was practicing law and if it overlapped with being First Lady A short list of jobs is useful What s there to hide She was never in prison She worked for a prestigous law firm Her practicing law did overlap with being First Lady of Arkansas but not with being First Lady of the United States The tag is meant for the article page not the talk page The article is currently around 67 kb which is long Talk Contribs Really being wikipedia NPOV we need to treat people fairly not have a double standard The opening paragraph has been very slightly modified to match that of Christopher Dodd another Democratic presidential contender We should treat them fairly and the same We still give Senator Clinton the honor of mentioning that she s first lady and has several first I don t see how you can be against it unless you aren t fair If this isn t the case and you want to change it explain why inconsistency is fair Why are you picking only Dodd Look at Barack Obama John Edwards John Kerry I ve looked at 1 3 to 1 2 of all the Senator articles and all the 2008 presidential candidate articles and there is absolutely no consistency among them in their intros But let me ask you this what is your objection to the current intro Dodd is from CT that borders NY First we make consistency between Dodd and Clinton then we ll worry about the others I can t see how you can be for inconsistency It just isn t fair And fairness and NPOV is what wikipedia is all about What s so bad with Dodd s intro It isn t negative or inaccurate Inconsistency of arrangement of neutral and unquestioned biographical details in an intro is not a matter of fairness or NPOV it s just plain old inconsistency so your argument is a red herring Your chance of getting all these articles to have consistent intros is zero take my word for it Your revised intro to this article wasn t as good as the existing one because it was a bit redundant and had faulty wikilinking Again what is your agenda here What do you think is wrong with what we have For one thing Dodd is called a politician which he is Hillary s occupation as politician is missing Someone is really a politician when they run for more than one office Jesse Ventura is difficult to call a politician cuz he just ran for one office then went back into wrestling or related jobs You are wrong about Ventura He was a mayor before he was governor and he was also involved in the shaping of third party political organizations So he is a politician just as much as HRC or anyone else For the most part however I think it is redundant to say someone is a politician when you say they are a senator and running for president obviously they are politicians I just sampled a bunch of articles and maybe 1 3 use politician in the intro Being Wikipedia it s ve