Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 4

message: I shortened the section on carpetbag issue because the extra verbiage said nothing. I deleted the section about other elections because it is misleading, and irrelevant. This is not the place to analyze state politics --there already are articles on Shumer and D'Amato. And it's based on original research that's a no-no Rjensen 16:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On carpetbagging, the text you omitted did say something — it made clear that she had never done anything in the state before, and when and where she moved to the state, and gave detail on the voters' reaction to the issue. This is highly relevant to this particular campaign, and not to NY State politics in general.  Your shortening removed the most important element in the campaign, and even removed the wikilink to carpetbagger, making readers wonder what it is.  I am restoring this text.   Wasted Time R 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: On comparing her winning margin to other margins, I commented out everything other than the Gore 2000 comparison. That one makes Hillary look bad, and so should satisfy all objectors.  Wasted Time R 17:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The carpetbagging text is POV and false. HC was a major player in New York politics for years--in fund raising for example. I'll rework it. Rjensen 18:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that extraneous material should be removed. I'm very concerned about the article becoming too long. I put this tag:  on the article, expessing my concerns that the page should be shortened. SNIyer12 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous material 

message: I think that this article should be shortened and/or new articles should be created. I'm very concerned about this article becoming too long. SNIyer12 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is long compared to most other Wikipedia articles, but why is this bad?  There is a very clear Table of Contents for the article, so readers can easily find the sections they are interested in and ignore the rest.  Splitting it out into multiple articles would not improve on the overall structure and would risk duplication of material creeping in.    Wasted Time R 14:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article should definitely be shortened. It's turning into a bunch of close-to-slanderous garbage. I vote that Controversies gets its own page. If fact, along with my vote, I'm making this change. Please don't change it back without discussion. We need to get the admins off our backs. luketh 02:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with luketh. This article MUST be shortened. I'm very concerned about this article becoming too long. I did this with Pan Am Flight 103, warning that the article was becoming too long and asked that sub-articles be created. -- SNIyer12 (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sniyer, you write this as though nothing has happened recently ... in fact, four separate articles have been split off, reducing the size of this main article considerably.   Wasted Time R 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I notice the "Speculation about possible 2008 presidential bid" is a particularly section that could be shortened or spun off. Within the next 12 months it could either grow into an article about her campaign, or be deleted if she doesn't run. -Will Beback 18:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.   Wasted Time R 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortening

message: Read President of the United States#Life after the Presidency, first sentence. I'm Canadian and even I knew that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. That's in reference to this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is betwen a title and a position. Bill Clinton still has the honorary title of "President", but he is no longer the president. In this case, we can probably drop the title entirely. -Will Beback 01:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to drop the title.  Look at the other recent First Lady articles — they all say "President" in their intros and no one bats an eyelash.  It's only the magic name "Clinton" that gets people turning silly.  Leave it the way it should be.   Wasted Time R 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should be consistent. If the husbands of other former First Ladies get a title then this one should too. Thanks for checking that. -Will Beback 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems pretty clear that it should be "President Clinton" per precedent from related articles. Readers can walk themselves over to his article if they're not sure whether he's out of office :)  Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: President v. Former President 

message: I had already changed "is the wife of..." to "is married to..." in the opening paragraph on Jan 19, 2006, and am glad to see that there is implicit agreement to this. I feel this is important, since she is a person in her own right, and language such as "wife of" hearkens back to the days when wives were their husbands' property. Incidentally, Encyclopedia Britannica still calls her the "wife of" Bill Clinton -- you backwards closed-source encyclopedia, you! ;) --RealGrouchy 07:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BTW, "Wife of" 

message: To meet the standards of Wikipedia, I have created the following three subpages: 1) Political Views of Hillary Clinton, 2) Controversies surrounding Hillary Clinton, 3) Cultural Matters of Hillary Clinton. Please remember to improve these subpages when you improve the main article. Thank you. -Luketh. luketh 02:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello again Luke.  Even though I was content with the one big article, I agree that a consensus had formed to split subarticles out, and I agree that you picked the right three to break out.  However, I have adjusted the subarticle titles to Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Controversies surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton.  That's because the name used in the subarticles should match the main article name (HRC not HC), and because WP article title conventions use lower case unless proper nouns are involved.  Wasted Time R 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, Wasted. Good to see you. Yes, you're right that HRC is better than HC for the subarticle titles. luketh 03:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new design 

message: LukeTH edit comment: "we talked extensively about balance. there are 1 million clinton books. please list equal number of anti- and pro-. if you add an anti- add a pro- and vice versa."
Luke, during one of your absences, this policy of yours was abandoned.  Instead, the books were explicitly split into separate "By Clintons", "Pro-Clinton", "Anti-Clinton", and "Mostly Neutral" groups.
When we did this, we quickly realized that there are far more anti-HRC books than pro-HRC books out there.  Why?  Simple human nature.  People riled up about a controversial person are a good deal more likely to buy a book criticizing the subject, than are people who admire that person likely to buy a book praising the subject.  It has nothing to do with ideology — a look at the List of books and films about George W. Bush will show that his Anti- list is a good deal longer than his Pro- list too.
So for this article to try to artificially impose a limit on listing anti-HRC books is wrong; it denies reality, and the ultimate NPOV application must be towards reality, not your perception of "balance".  I will restore the book list accordingly.   Wasted Time R 14:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discarding the "balance" policy is OK, I guess, because you have good arguments to do so. The new category, "somewhat anti-Clinton, but less partisan," doesn't seem like a good idea to me because it's entirely subjective. Personally I would consider the Morris and Brock books to be VERY partisan. I'm folding these two categories together because the degree of partisanship in anti-Clinton books is too subjective for consensus. If the book was written to damage Clinton, then it belongs in the anti-Clinton category. Readers can debate whether the book damages Clinton a lot or a little. luketh 03:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Morris book is not really partisan, it's more about how money corrupts politics — he takes off on Reagan and other Republican administrations as well as the Clinton administration.  The Brock book was supposed to be partisan, but he wrote it in the middle of his political turnabout, so it's really more of a mishmash.  I thought both authors deserved better than to be grouped with the by-the-numbers Regnery screeds.  I agree, though, that these kind of judgements do easily fall into subjectivity.  Wasted Time R 04:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Because the reading list was so long and not interesting to people who are not interested in further research, it seemed appropriate to create a subpage for it as most other political figures articles have done. luketh 03:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Balance" in Further Reading list 

message: The new excessive use of subtitles breaking the reasonably-sized paragraphs into a few senteces per subsection is very ugly. I've returned the original, superior, format. Please leave it as it is unless you can indeed build a consensus that such a ghastly format is good for this article. luketh 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  subtitles 

message: Does this quote really belong in this article? Wanda5088 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote has gotten a lot of attention in the press and among pundits, so yes, it's reasonable to include.   Wasted Time R 11:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps its worth noting but is the phrasing "cast doubt on Clinton's presidential chances" really appropriate? Does Sharon Stone have that much power? Neil --67.158.69.83 16:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Cast doubt" just means that she expressed doubt, not that that doubt itself has an effect on the candidacy itself.  But I'll rephrase it a bit.   Wasted Time R 11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote

message: SERIOUSLY...why would a picture of a poorly photoshoped topless Hillary even appear on this article for ONE edit? Let's grow up a little.
This section clearly needs expansion. It looks like a whitewash. By the way, from a quick glance at the article, it's pretty telling that the term "Whitewater" does not come up even once. 172 | Talk 14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the fourth section of Controversies surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton is entitled "Whitewater scandal".  Methinks you didn't follow the link!   Wasted Time R 14:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This discussion is being moved to the proper Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies page.   Wasted Time R 15:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Can't anybody read?  If you object to something in the Controversies page, discuss it at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, not here.  If you object to something in the Cultural matters page, as apparently you do, discuss it at Talk:Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Your one criticism relative to the main article is discussed below.  And as for your edit comment claim that these articles 'maintained a dedicated "bias" page more extesive than her contirbutions', please take a look at Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#United_States_Senator, Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Awards_and_honors, and Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton.   Wasted Time R 11:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's only locked to anons like you, because as a group you've proved yourselves incapable of useful editing. And Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies isn't locked at all.   Wasted Time R 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry for reverting this, I read the title and missed the "talk:" in the front.  You have my apologies. i kan reed 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies section

message: This sentence in the article is unsourced: "Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, a conservative, was an executive in the textile industry...". Doesn't sound right to me.    [05:52, 5 June 2006 66.98.131.128 ]
:It's elaborated upon in the Hugh Rodham, Sr. article.    Wasted Time R 11:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father was conservative? 

message: If the Lewinsky and Flowers relationships are relevant, then so are all Bill's other relationships. I actually admire some things Hilary believes in, but it is wrong to whitewash her marriage as perfect. The old piece looks like it came from a Hilary PR piece   [21:42, 6 July 2006 70.110.156.83]
:The Lewinsky and Flowers relationships are ones that Bill had admitted to having; the others are all denied by Bill.  That's the difference.  This section is about Bill and Hillary's marriage in the light of his admitted infidelities.  The other ones belong in a Bill Clinton controversies article or the like, not here.  The existing article does state, "For much of his political career, President Clinton was dogged by rumors of extramarital affairs. These rumors gained credibility following the Lewinsky scandal." That's hardly a whitewash.  Wasted Time R 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship With Bill 

message: Shouldn't this be "marriage with Bill Clinton" instead? I think it sounds more sensible.   [03:00, 7 July 2006 72.75.211.97]
:Well, the idea is to not just discuss the fact that they're married, but the human relationship between them - are they friends? political partners? toxic lock? what keeps them together? is it all a charade? That sort of thing. 'Relationship' captures this a bit more broadly than 'marriage'.   Wasted Time R 03:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section doesn't actually mention federal prosecution at all.  But since this anon doesn't like the section header either, I'll change it as requested.   Wasted Time R 12:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the current state is ridiculous.  As you can see from the talk section just below this one, I was going to rewrite the section based entirely on HRC's words from Living History.  Haven't done that yet.  I would be happy enough just to restore it the way it was, don't know if Francespeabody is still around to object.   Wasted Time R 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For now I've just restored the old content. We'll see what happens.  Wasted Time R 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Bill Clinton 

message: In relation to :
Pat Nixon Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Their husbands had "Issues" can we agree? Nixon was impeached and John F had reported affairs but neither of their Wiki bio's contain, dignify or assign the "Husbands" misdeeds to the wife. I should say that in the case of Mrs. Nixon, she was not blamed in her marriage for her husbands failings as a president or as a man. However on the Democratic side for Mrs. Kennedy, they do make mention of a transgression. 
Even here there is bias, if you compare the two presidents sins, Nixon's is gravely more dangerous yet nothing stains his wife but Jackie has to wear that badge on her? But even in Jackie's case the issue is related without the venom that HRC is being subjected to here. Many more stories exist about Jack and the details are the stuff of legend but those stories do not stain "her impeccable reputation" nor should they.
Simple!!!--Francespeabody 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are comparing apples, oranges, and a truck.  Nixon's (almost) impeachment, unlike Bill Clinton's, had nothing to do with his personal life and thus nothing to do with Pat.  JFK's affairs were of course relevant to his and Jackie's personal life and relationship within the White House.  But both were conventional First Ladies.  Hillary was not; she was a politician-in-the-making, who later became a politician.  Hillary is bound to have more controversies written about her than any other First Lady.  By the way, if you want a Wikipedia article that discusses Republican First Lady controversies, check out Nancy Reagan.    Wasted Time R 22:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to Pat Nixon and Jackie Kennedy

message: Please stop removing this catagorey. Both of Mrs. Clinton's paternal grandparents are English immigrants, and, as such, she comfortably qualifies as an English American. Manticore126
:Is this really relevant? I mean, that means she is a third-generation English American. She is already in many, many categories. Has she made reference to her English heritage as an important part of her self? Theshibboleth 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English American 

message: Can't something be done to PROTECT this page, at least from anonymous users, since it has repeatedly been the victim of vandalism?  JimmB 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question. I am new to Wikipedia and was wondering why Wikipedia allows anonymous edits in the first place? Why do they not require that a user be registered and logged in to edit??? Nevermind, I found information on this after digging around for some time. I understand now that this is a fundamental attribute of wiki and isn't something that is going to be changed easily. I also do have to say I have noticed, at least in regards to this article, that vandalism is dealt with very swiftly and I am impressed at that. I only wonder how it is dealt with on less read and watched articles within wiki. Druac Blaise 07:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Damn straight she's hot.  I'll put my name to it too.  Pyroponce 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect this page 

message: This article reads like a press release from the Hillary Clinton Campaign.  How about some balance?  There's more than a critic or two out there.  --12.74.187.177 06:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies.  That's also where the the charges of anti-Semitism (that you were trying to include in the main article), are already discussed.  Am taking off the pov tag since clearly you never saw the controversies article.  Wasted Time R 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: But she was previously one of his major and strongest supporters in the foering policy.
I thhink this category should be for longitime and not flip-floopers critict (Byrd, Gore)
83.24.194.186 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is stupid and hopefully will be deleted soon, so don't worry about it.   Wasted Time R 12:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Critics of George W. Bush

message: Great praise to User:Ricky81682 for converting all the citations to the proper references format!
I hesitate to mention that there are four subsidiary articles that also need conversion ;-)  Wasted Time R 11:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise

message: - 	Wouldn't that be her full name after marrying Bill?--Folksong 20:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton? 

message: I moved the 2008 presidential race speculation section into its own article, Hillary Rodham Clinton 2008 presidential speculation.  It was getting too long and disjointed to be here, and it will only get bigger.  If she does eventually run, the new article can be renamed to her campaign article.   Wasted Time R 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split-out of 2008 presidential speculation section 

message: I notice some edits coming in on Clinton's performance around job creation.  In particular what looks like an attempt to show she may not have met her pledge to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate NY.  Unfortunately the current section ends up being a bunch of facts that aren't really related.  200K new jobs is not necessarily contradicted by 170,000 manufacturing job losses, or a rise in over all unemployment.  I think this is in part due to the nature of many political promises. It can be hard to hold any politician to most the letter of most promises they are likely to make.  Nevertheless it's not unreasonable for readers of this article to want to see a well balanced evaluation of the state's performance in areas Clinton specifically identified as being important to voters through the pledges she made.  
How about making that part of the article less focused on trying to refute a specific pledge (the 200K jobs) and more focused on general issues around NY employment and Clinton's actions?  -- SiobhanHansa 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, what's there now is a logical jumble of mismatched comparisons. I would have yanked it but I felt bad for User:Russellsquire who after being reverted a bunch of times is at least trying to provide some citations.  Although Senators, like all public officials, are limited in the actual effect they have on the economy, an examination of the actual economic data versus what their campaign goals were is certainly a legitimate subject.  Wasted Time R 03:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance on employment creation in NY 

message: I'm suspecting that the marriage section may have a case to be mentioned first. Especially since the gap between the college section and the first lady section is pretty big. --RobbieFal 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your confusion is because we lost the entire 'Marriage and family, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas' section two days ago due to a race condition between a double vandalism and a reversion.  I've restored it now, everything makes sense again.  Why the powers that be don't put articles like this under better protection from daily vandalism attacks is beyond me.  Wasted Time R 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Lady section v. Marriage section 

message: "In 2004, the National Journal's study of roll-call votes assigned Clinton a rating of 30 in the political spectrum, relative to the current Senate, with a rating of 1 being most liberal and a rating of 100 being most conservative.[61][62]" Actually going to these references I don't see Hiliary getting a rank of 30. This needs to be corrected or deleted.Sad mouse 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: almanac of Am Politics 2006 p 1152 gives her 2004 NJ scores:
Most Liberal = 100, most conservative = 0: 
Clinton Economic = 63, Social = 82, Foreign = 58. Average = 68 (or on a 100 = most conservative scale this would be 32, pretty close to the 30.) Rjensen 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here was the original passage had two cites, but the second one was for a different study altogher.  I've restored those, clarified the cite, and added Rjenson's material too.  Wasted Time R 03:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported statement on political spectrum 

message: I'd like to propose a new external link in this article, in the "Unofficial" subsection, to Hillary Clinton's page on whereIstand.com. The "Public Figures" feature of whereIstand is kind of a souped-up, community-generated version of OnTheIssues.org, which also shows up in that section (disclosure: I'm an editor there). Please have a look and see if it's worty of inclusion. --EsperantoStand 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is great that you had the respect for the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia that you made the effort to follow recommended practice.  At the moment the site doesn't seem to be particularly well known, or connected with well known political academics or other commentators. And I'm personally concerned by the lack of provenance on the site and it's owners.  Although the content may well be better than some of the links currently on this article, I personally think that's more reason to slim down the links that are there :-)  So I'd prefer it to stay off for now, although if it becomes  well used or generally well respected site I think it could be worth reconsidering.  I don't edit this article that much though, other editors may have different opinions. --Siobhan Hansa 01:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: It strikes me as odd that the First Lady section is entirely composed of positive statements, with the various controversies pushed off both to the end of the article and even then set as a link to another article.  Surely some of the bigger controversies, particularly the health care task force and Tammy Wynette/cookies references, should appear in the main article.
69.250.29.200 [02:39, 22 November 2006]
:You're wrong about the health care task force - that takes up the entire second paragraph of the First Lady section.  You're right about the Controversies page, where Tammy Wynette/baking cookies and a lot of other things are sequestered.  That was the result of a compromise with some other editors active at the time, who felt that to interleave those controversies with the straight biographical account was POV.  To me, it could be done either way, but the main article is already very long as it is, so splitting out material is a good thing.  There's no standard here - other Wikipedia articles on politicians do it every which way.   Wasted Time R 12:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Lady section on main, controversies at end and in its own article?