Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 7

message: You can smell the POV from a mile away--RCT 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Some of us have always wanted to adapt Smell-o-Vision to Wikipedia articles and now it looks as though we've succeeded. Hard work does pay off! Wasted Time R 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewash 

message: Per the GA comments, I have attempted to expand the lead section.  This is fraught with peril, as everyone loves to battle over what the lead says.  However, what was there clearly did not meet the WP:LS requirements.  Note that I haven't put any sourcing into the lead, because everything that's there is thoroughly sourced later on in the body of the article.  Wasted Time R 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's too long.  It says too much about Arkansas. That's better dealt with in its own section.--Gloriamarie 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response below.  Wasted Time R 18:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The text you are objecting to is in the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article, not this article.  You need to make your comment there.   Wasted Time R 11:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: Moving to New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected to the United States Senate in 2000, becoming the first First Lady elected to public office and the first woman elected statewide in New York.The last part of this sentence is erroneous. Elizabeth McCaughey was elected lieutenant governor of New York in 1994.   [03:23, 10 June 2007 24.168.150.1]
:This has since been changed.  The intended meaning was, Senator or Governor, not sub-Governor statewide positions, but this was difficult to say concisely, so someone has changed it to just first Senator.  Wasted Time R 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First woman elected statewide 

message: This article needs serious editing. There are no sources where sources are needed and there are far too many references in the early life section.  Perhaps we can forgo adding links to other pages for simple things such as "New York" and "Chicago" to keep the article from being a scattered mess of blue text with interjections of black text. After all, when one clicks on "Chicago," I doubt they will find any information pertinent to the article on H. Clinton.  Secondly,  the second paragraph appears a bit choppy with "she" being the subject of nearly every sentence. Lastly, it has to be shortened: while I am sure many of us care that she was a college Republican, I think that a short section combining her college years and early career would suffice. Moreover, the section on her term as senator is far too long; nearly twice the length of Strom Thurmond's, and lets face it, she hasn't done all that much. If people want to know all about her, they will read one of the many biographies on her...as for this article, it needs only to contain the really, really really important information... and perhaps the really really.   [01:04, 12 June 2007 Mrathel]
#Please call out where sources are needed, editors here will be happy to supply them (or delete material if there are none).
#Blue text is a fact of life in this medium.  Better more links than less.  A foreign reader, for example, may have no idea where Chicago is within the United States, and the link is therefore helpful.
#I strongly disagree about shortening her early life or college or post-college sections.  These were her formative years and she had a lot of accomplishments, ones that people who only view her as the wife of a successful politician may not be aware of.
#I agree the section on Senator probably has a little too much here or there.  The Strom Thurmond article is too short; WP:Recentism at work again.
#I disagree that this article needs to be terse and that people need to head off to a biography.  Wikipedia has reams of information about TV shows and video games and B-sides of singles; it can certainly afford a comprehensive account of major political figures, HRC included.   Wasted Time R 01:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the article is quite long.  I don't think that's a bad thing, but the opening is overly long.  I would say that the second paragraph-- on Wellesley and her law career-- does not need to be there because the First Lady and Senator information is so much more important for an opening.  It just seems very wordy.  A sentence would be sufficient about her law career.. perhaps "Once named one of the hundred most influential lawyers in America, as First Lady Clinton..." and go into the First Lady paragraph.  While the Wellesley information is obviously important and should be included in her early life or school section, it doesn't really belong in the opening to the entire article.--Gloriamarie 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key here is that many people think HRC has earned nothing on her own, that everything has come from being married to BC.  If the opening only talks about First Lady and Senator, that impression will get reinforced.  That's why I think the college and law career material is important.  It shows that she was already quite accomplished before BC became widely known. And in an article this long (and just wait, if she becomes president!), a longish lead section is not inappropriate.  Wasted Time R 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that really NPOV to write the article directed at a certain subset of readers?  I believe that the same impression can be given by simply including an amazing fact like "she was considered one of the 100 most influential/important lawyers in the country" and then talking about the other stuff.  I still think it's too long, especially talking even about Wellesley :)  --Gloriamarie 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The lead should also be thoroughly cited, even if the references are included elsewhere in the article.  The same references can be used.--Gloriamarie 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LS says the lead section "should be carefully sourced as appropriate".  I was hoping "as appropriate" meant, source things if they don't get sourced later ;-)  Wasted Time R 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh- we were just given a GA review that specifically asked that the intro be LENGTHENED, which it has been.  Now we're being told it's too long.  I think in balance that Wasted is correct - this subject can support a long article, as there are several significant areas to examine, and we dcon't have to worry so much about length.  Tvoz |talk 22:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think the lengthening was taken a bit too far.  It seems odd to be talking about the Wellesley speech, interesting fact as it is, in the second paragraph of the article.--Gloriamarie 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need to arbitrate the length of Barack Obama here - the editors there have their reasons for constructing it the way it is, and the editors here have a different set of circumstances to negotiate.  Although I was skeptical at first, I now think the long intro here is appropriate, and I think Wasted's argument above from June 13 about presenting material about her that demonstrates her independent accomplishments, is exactly correct and we should not remove the sentences referenced above - each adds an important element. Tvoz |talk 03:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing needed 

message: I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule --Robapalooza 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule 

message: Not a single mention of Hillary's vote for the Iraq War Resolution? Hillary's supporters must be working overtime to sweep that rather important but now embarrasing bit of information under the rug. Well, I'll add it and take up a pool on how long it takes a DLC/DNC operative to edit it out.--Nicky Scarfo 16:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed it.  Senator section, first term subsection.  "Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, ..."   Wasted Time R 16:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oopsy-- just noticed it, I guess I missed it being buried in with all the wonderful things she's done. Sorry folks. --Nicky Scarfo 16:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: Weird question here. I was in the other room last night and overhead something on the news from the other room. They were playing some new video that had some connection to Hilary or her campaign or something about her. Anyway the song kicked ass and I want to know the title and singer of the song. I've heard it before. The name "Dream" is coming to my mind for some reason, I don't know if that's the name of the artist or has no connection to the song I'm thinking of at all but for some reason I have a feeling the word "Dream" is either the title of the band/singer or of the song itself. Some words I can remember from the song are "street lights," "somewhere in the night," and "people" if that narrows it down (which it doesn't much as nothing of note came up on google when I googled those words with the word "lyrics". Anyway, anyone know what song this is? Thanks.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Playstation7654 (talk • contribs) 
:Sounds like you heard Journey's classic "Don't Stop Believin'", recently of Sopranos final episode and Clintons spoof fame.  This has been added to the campaign article, but doesn't merit mention here.  Wasted Time R 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hilary Clinton-related music video?

message: I'm surprised there's no mention of her voting position on the Patriot Act.  In the little research I did I found that she voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and again in 2006 to renew it.  I think this and perhaps some of her thoughts on the issue would be highly relevant to add to the article.  --68.41.43.166 03:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I've added text to this effect, although I was kind of hand-wavy about what provisions she was trying to change during the 2005/2006 debate on renewal.  If you have more to add, put it here with cites and I'll try to incorporate it.  Wasted Time R 13:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillary on the Patriot Act 

message: I heard that she isn't HRC anymore. It's Hillary Clinton. Is this true? ItSawGood 07:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.   Wasted Time R 10:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rodham dropped? 

message: Read the Conservapedia article on HRC.  No NPOV restrictions over there to worry about!   Wasted Time R 04:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up HIV/AIDS that article says "primarily a sexually transmitted disease that strikes down wicked sodomites and other vile reprobates, such as liberals." Or look up some creationist articles on there. Forget NPOV, there are no accuracy requirements for there. Plantocal 19:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In need of a good guffaw? 

message: Her father's ancestry is mentioned under the Early life and Education section. Can her mother's ancestry be added as well?
Ref: Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, was a son of Welsh and English immigrants[4] and operated a small but successful business in the textile industry.[5] Her mother, Dorothy Emma Howell Rodham, was a homemaker.
:I've now added this.  The two good sources I've seen for Hillary's ancestry are Living History and the William Addams Reitwiesner geneaology.  It seems a bit murky are the origins of Hillary's maternal grandmother Della Murray; I've covered this in a footnote.  Wasted Time R 13:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No ancestry on Hillary mother side? 

message: In "Early life and education" I added to her original last name her current one. Just because back then it wasn't her name, the subject person is still Hillary Rodham Clinton and not Hillary Rodham. 
If Joe Miller changes his name to Bob McGovern, one must say "Bob McGovern was born in AR as Joe Miller" and not the other way around. Stop reversing. 
Northern 15:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed in the past, consult the Talk archives.  The intro to the whole article refers to Hillary Rodham Clinton.  The "early life" section concerns a person who was then Hillary Rodham, and needs to be referred to as such.  She had many achievements before she ever took "Clinton" into her name.   Wasted Time R 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasted is correct. Tvoz |talk 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life and education 

message: I know that Hugh's and Tony's occupations were put into the "Early life" section as part of GA review, but I've yanked them.  One, they were confusing; given the very chronological nature of the article, it made it seem like they were already in those occupations when Hillary was growing up, which of course is senseless.  Two, the occupations given conflicted with the articles on Hugh and Tony!  In fact, it's not straightforward to describe either of their careers:  best leave that to their articles, that's what wikilinks are for.   Wasted Time R 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. The only reason i asked for it is because i had no idea what they were doing. If it disturbs the flow of the article, i have no objection to the removal. --Kalyan 08:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here. Tvoz |talk 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Follow-up - work for now on both of these is done.  Wasted Time R 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupations of Hugh and Tony 

message: On the third paragraph, there's a bracket missing from an image causing it to not work. 58.178.9.123 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, is now fixed.  Wasted Time R 01:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Lady of the United States 

message: I removed the pie chart in the 2008 Presidential election section. For one thing, it essentially labeled candidates who were not Clinton/Obama/Edwards as "other" making it inherently biased. Second I don't think that we should use this article to speculate on the outcomes of the primaries.--Jersey Devil 07:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this - although it's interesting and well done, I too think it is problematic and doesn't belong in the main article in any case.  (By the way, Jersey, I  am pretty sure I've seen  versions of it in other presidential campaign articles, so perhaps they shoul dbe removed too.) Tvoz |talk 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the speculative aspect, but I strongly disagree with your stated reason for removing it.  The chart was generated based on the best-available poling data (see the image source).  This is an accurate an unbiased representation of the available information.  Silly rabbit 08:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well sr, perhaps my edit summary should have included my objections to the "speculative" issue. Tvoz, that particular pie chart is now orphaned but if there are other versions of it on other articles I agree that they should be removed.--Jersey Devil 08:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never liked this pie chart, in any of the articles it's included in.  I applaud the removal.--Gloriamarie 21:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph Removed 

message: Can anyone cogently explain how a person who failed a bar exam could be appointed to teach law shortly thereafter? It is all sourced from her autobiography, but I don't understand it. -- Y not? 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_6#Failed_DC_Bar_Exam for the past discussion on this.  Regarding your particular question, she passed the one in Arkansas, which is where she was teaching; the D.C. failure was irrelevant.  Wasted Time R 20:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've expanded a bit on the bar exam failure in a footnote, including that she didn't tell her friends about it for 30 years.   Wasted Time R 11:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  After Yale [bar exam failure again] 

message: Hello,
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.
Thanks,
Nick  --  Zanimum 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions? Ask them through Wikinews 

message: Someone changed the opening blurb so it says Hillary is the future president rather than a candidate.  Please change it back.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.0.144.26  (talk • contribs) 
:Was done soon after.  Generally there's no need to flag these kinds of obvious vandalism in Talk, as lots of admins have this page in their sights.  Wasted Time R 12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please edit 

message: What's this about Rudy can't get an erection?  Must be some anti-Rudy folks editing.  There's even a reference.  How about mentioning Bill Clinton's crooked penis, which is a true statement.  Seriously, we need warnings on the top of these articles or people will think all of wikipedia is wacky, not just the articles of presidential hopefuls. JonnyLate 16:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New standards for wikipedia presidential hopefuls' article.  Mention sex, I'm not kidding

message: Just a note that some of the material formerly in Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies has been merged into here, either in the mainline sections or in footnotes, as part of the dismantling of that article.  See Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies#Proposal to dismantle this article for the full story.  Wasted Time R 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some controversies merged in

message: The entry states that Clinton "sits on five committees" but in fact she sits only on four (Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Senate Special Committee on Aging) according to the entry itself and Clinton's website (http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/committees/index.cfm).  Mae23 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's four currently, five in her total time as Senator.  I've changed the wording to clarify this.  Wasted Time R 12:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Committee assignments 

message: maybe i was asleep when that story broke but i don't think she had an affair with barabara walters. if she did please site the source or remove that comment
Daud44 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was mindless, moronic vandalism - now removed.  Tvoz |talk 17:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: News? Tvoz |talk 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  source needed for affair with barabara walters. 

message: Why is there no mention of Hillary's vote against the Levin Amendment to the Iraq War Resolution in the section discussing her vote on Iraq. Hillary specifically voted against this amendment which would have required President Bush to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the UN and also would have required a separate Congressional authorization to allow a unilateral invasion. Given her campaign speeches touting her vote as, "A vote for strong diplomacy," and this article's mention of the diplomatic requirements of the authorization, it seems only fair to mention her full voting record on this very important piece of legislation. (If memory serves me correct, she voted in favor of the rather toothless Byrd Amendment which gave only a one-year authorization, but which could be extended based on President Bush's assertion that the war  was vital to national security). Hopefully, someone with the power to unlock this page to add this relevant information can include this. Pkmilitia 10:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page isn't locked, just semi-protected; registered users who have been around for more than a few days, such as yourself, can edit it.  In any case, there's a fuller discussion of HRC's votes relative to the Iraq War Resolution in Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Iraq_War; you might look to edit there too.  Wasted Time R 11:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I trimmed out the editorializing from the contribution to this article - not the place for it - and also the Arianna cite - opinion columns don't make for good sources.  I wikified the campaign article contribution - you should look for wikilinks on stuff like this, Gerth and Van Natta both have their own articles here and readers may want to judge their background when assessing claims such as these.  The political positions contribution looks ok.  Wasted Time R 01:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: While Gerth and Van Natta, two reporters who have made their careers out of making the Clintons miserable, may think that her vote on the Levin Amendment is a key decision that undermines her explanations re the Iraq War Resolution, hardly anyone else does.  Indeed the Levin Amendment isn't even discussed in the Iraq War Resolution article, as far as I can tell.  And since HRC hasn't explained her reason for voting against the Levin Amendment, we can't really sustain your proposed text.  If you really want to add material on this, the political positions article is the better place.  The main article has to keep the narrative moving, otherwise it bogs down and gets way too long.   Wasted Time R 03:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I still don't like burdening the description of what she did in 2003 with the arguments about it people are making in 2007.  It belongs in the material that discusses her later framing, which means the Political positions or Campaign articles.  Wasted Time R 04:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on Levin Amendment

message: Can someone remove that picture and put one up that hasn't been touched up?  That picture doesn't look remotely real.   [19:07, 30 July 2007 63.237.78.40]
:No.  Due to Wikipedia's very restrictive image copyright rules, there's only a small number of photographs available for us to use, and as far as I know that's the best for the top one.  Wasted Time R 19:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find one, and we'll consider using it.  Wasted Time R 14:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we use this one?  :-) Ferrylodge 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: surely the fact that someone who could potentially become US president used to serve on the board of americas second largest corporation (wal-mart) deserves more than a passing mention, especially in light of well documented labour rights abuses by the firm, notably use of third world sweatshops and union busting of its US workforce
further, as walmartwatch.com points out, "A May 2004 report documented how Wal-Mart received more than $1 billion from at least 244 taxpayer-funded subsidies -- including free or reduced price land, Tax Increment Finance (TIF) districts, infrastructure assistance, property tax breaks, state corporate income tax credits, sales tax rebates, tax-exempt bond financing, enterprise zone status, job training/recruiting funds and general grants." 
Of course this is nothing to do with their friends in high places, but isnt the relationship a little more significant than the one line mention suggests   [16:03, 9 August 2007 89.243.33.142]
:Yes.  I've now expanded the material on her Wal-Mart board time.  Wasted Time R 14:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  corporate connections 

message: why is it that there are no actual positions listed in the 'political positions' section?  polls of where Americans *think* she lies on the political spectrum are hardly conclusive or precise stances.  [06:47, 14 August 2007 69.27.79.149]
:See that line "Main article: Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton"?  Click.  Wasted Time R 10:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  political positions or 'perception' 

message: The subject's religious affiliation (in the info box) should probably be clarified as United Methodist, rather than the more vague Methodist.
Sources:
United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries news release, April 24, 1996 
washingtonpost.com 2008 Presidential Candidate page 
Pew Forum 2008 Candidate Background 
Go2dell 06:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I changed it.  I didn't change the reference to the Methodist family she grew up in (the Park Ridge church was United Methodist, but can't tell what the Scranton Court Street Methodist Church was that her father belonged to and that she was christened in) or the Methodist wedding ceremony (LH isn't more specific).  Wasted Time R 11:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The church still exists in the UMC database as "Court Street," which means it is properly Court Street United Methodist Church.  There is a matching listing in the Scranton phone directory for Court Street United Methodist Church, ZIP 18508.  When speaking of UMCs, the "United" is frequently dropped (and sometimes even the "Methodist"), but I think accuracy is important. Go2dell 04:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for the research, I've changed that 'Early life' reference to be more specific.  Wasted Time R 11:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm
This new story is saying that WP has proven that the Democratic Party has POV pushed to smear its opponents (and the CIA did the same to Iran).  Therefore, beware of POV pushing to smear Republicans and POV pushing to delete all but the most positive information on the Democrats.  Actually, it's conceivable that the Republicans could do the same but there is no evidence that this has happened.
This may explain the edit warring at Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. 
Anyone who reverts this warning is suspect to being a POV pusher unless you can prove the BBC is wrong and the Wikipedia did not actually determine that the Democrats and CIA were involved.Warningwarningwarning 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "BBC didn't do it" is laughable. But if the Democrats, Republican, CIA or KGB edit here, and edit according to our guidelines, nobody cares. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This doesn't explain edit warring.  Normal WP editors are quite capable of it all by themselves!   Wasted Time R 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Actually, it's conceivable that the Republicans could do the same but there is no evidence that this has happened." That is probably one of the funnier comments I've seen on Talk recently.  Donald Segretti - are you listening?  Tvoz |talk 19:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't object to putting her Rwanda remark somewhere, but where you put it was very clumsy - at the end of the paragraph on the health care initiative, which it had nothing to do with, and with a 2005 mention in the text (should be in a footnote, so as not to disrupt the historical flow).  In my edit comment I suggested you put it in the Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton article, where I think it better belongs, as it goes towards the general conundrum of when and whether to intervene in foreign civil conflicts.  Wasted Time R 03:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The chronology of the article is somewhat arbitrary and seems to be based more around political issues than a timeline of events. I tried to place it with the event that was closest in time (1994). Perhaps some work should be done to re-order her first lady section into a more chronological form.GrEp 18:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: International news story about POV pushing on WP..Democrats are guilty

message: I've added some sorely needed subsections in the long First Lady section.  The way I did it organizes it by topic, and breaks the chronology a bit, but I think it improves the readability, and I hope the existence now of a ToC-visible section called "Whitewater and other investigations" will help people find this material, and not think it was left out!!   Wasted Time R 23:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The First Lady section says, "She was the first First Lady to hold a post-graduate degree and to have her own professional career."  That seems a bit exaggerated.  For example, Nancy Davis had a long professional career as an actress from 1948 to 1962.  Also, Eleanor Roosevelt received a Doctorate of Humane Letters as early as 1929.  Any thoughts?Ferrylodge 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eleanor Roosevelt degree was an honorary one, which is a whole different matter - she didn't earn it through the normal process of study and scholarly work, and so it doesn't count in this regard.  The "own professional career" needs to be modified to include, "at the time of becoming First Lady".  Otherwise, you're right, Nancy could be included, as well as Betty Ford (dancer and dance instructor) and arguably Pat Nixon (a bunch of things).  I'll make the change.  Wasted Time R 00:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, Laura Bush is the second FL to hold a post-grad degree (MLS).  I added that to her article a long time ago, but I see it hasn't stayed in.  Too bad....  Wasted Time R 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying the article.  In fairness to people like Eleanor Roosevelt, though, the article ought to say that Hillary was the first First Lady who had obtained a post-graduate education, etc.  After all, honorary degrees are often postgraduate, as was Eleanor Roosevelt's.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-graduate_study#Honorary_degrees  To say that Eleanor Roosevelt's postgraduate degree "doesn't count" is somewhat unkind to her, considering that she earned it as surely as Hillary earned hers.  IMHO.Ferrylodge 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of the cultural point being made in the article, honorary degrees are irrelevant - we're looking at how HRC is was an indicator of how the educational levels of women, and women married to politicians, haven risen in recent times ... and Eleanor Roosevelt didn't even attend college, much less any post-grad school.  Eleanor Roosevelt had tremendous accomplishments in her life, but they did not include academic study.  Nevertheless, I've added a footnote re her case.  Wasted Time R 00:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the footnote.Ferrylodge 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, "Politician" also belongs for sure - that's what she has been for the last 7 years as a Senator.  The other two are probably trying to describe what she did as US FL and Arkansas FL ... I don't have a strong opinion about them either way.  Wasted Time R 02:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I guess we'll leave "politician" for now, although someone like Eleanor Roosevelt seems to have fit that bill as well, leading up to her first ladyship.  Anyway, I'll remove "policy maker" and "public service advocate" which sound a bit like resume-padding.Ferrylodge 02:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsections added in the First Lady section

message: I'm not a fan of trivia sections, but should there be an area (probably a "see also" article) for cultural/media portrayals? I wasn't able to find one if it exists. This appears to be a common practice (Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush, The Statue of Liberty in popular culture, Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln to name a few) for high-profile subjects. I think it would be an interesting read. Rompe 08:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there have been that many notable portrayals.  A couple on SNL (I don't even remember who played her), Emma Thompson's fictionalized role in Primary Colors, ... what else?  Wasted Time R 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right, which is why I posted here. I'm pretty sure Caroline Reynolds (character on Prison Break) was meant to reflect on her character, but other than that and the things you mentioned, nothing special comes to mind. That will probably change when she's president though. Rompe 22:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But "meant to reflect on her character" wouldn't make it - that would probably be OR unless third parties have made the point. Not sure there's enough to warrant an article, and I wouldn't want to see it in this one. Tvoz |talk 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The Presidential campaign of 2008  is really not a sub-set of her Senate career, any more than the Senate campaign was a sub-set of her First Lady tenure.  These are separate entities, and it is consistent with all of the other candidate pages that I looked at - across the spectrum from Obama to Brownback.  Re-election to the Senate is one thing - but going for a different office is more properly handled as its own thing.  Tvoz |talk 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me.  I only changed the presidential one to be consistent with how User:Happyme22 changed the senatorial one.  I'm happy to see them both go back to where they were.  Wasted Time R 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh - I didn't notice Happy's change - I will take a look at that too. I also changed "election" to "campaign" in the presidential head - not to get ahead of ourselves. Tvoz |talk 18:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I hadn't looked carefully enough - I agree that as we now have it, and had it previously, is correct: Senate campaign and presidential campaign as their own sections, not part of FL or Senate. Tvoz |talk 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  section head 

message: Should be there:   —Preceding unsigned comment added by K157 (talk • contribs) 
I disagree - see above Tvoz |talk 22:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Offices in infobox

message: I just read this article from MSN which puts Senator Clinton's personal net worth at $50 million. I scanned this article and don't see mention of this; rather than add it myself, I'll leave it to the discretion of you regular contributors if (and where) it should be placed. Cheers, faithless (speak) 12:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now added, to the second term senator section.  Wasted Time R 00:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Thanks. :) faithless (speak) 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal wealth 

message: Care should be taken to distinguish the 1993 Clinton health care plan (just renamed to include "1993") from HRC's newly announced plan - we presently have it in this article, but if it gets expanded into its own article it should not be put into the one about the 1993 plan, but should be on its own. Tvoz |talk 07:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Care plan 

message: Five sources listed and more exists.  She said firmly recently that she is not a lesbian.  She had been rumored to be.E343ll 22:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 of those sources refer to the same article. 1 of them looks to be a blog.  There's no way this is notable enough to deserve its own subsection and I highly question whether it should be in the article at all.  I'm removing it for now.  -Maximusveritas 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not.  Libel is making a false accusation that you know to be false.  Not talking about someone else's false smear campaign is not libel in any manner, and we don;t need to give it any more publicity. You've heard of "when did you stop beating your wife?" Tvoz |talk 21:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Countless public figures have had unfounded allegations of homosexuality leveled against them. As it's completely false, we should not dignify it by discussing it, IMHO. faithless (speak) 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As I read WP:BLP, this would have to be a much more credible or often-made "allegation" than it is, to be included in the article. The Truth About Hillary is the "source" that's tried to do the most in this area, but it came up largely empty. There's no there there. See Ryan Seacrest and Clay Aiken, for example, for articles which do discuss it, as the question comes up far more often with them. On the other hand, if Hillary is able to discuss this calmly, I suppose we could too. It's not a mark of shame, and note that the above analogy is imperfect, as being gay is not equivalent to committing physical assault. Wasted Time R 21:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ed Koch mentions it because he was unmarried, unseen with women (except for the somewhat farcical thing with Bess Myerson), and talked about a lot at the time.  If you look at Talk:Larry Craig/Archive 1, you'll see the editors had huge battles, going to RFCs and the like, about whether to mention it back in the time before the bathroom arrest event.  The "allegations" for HRC in this respect are emptier than for either of those two.  Wasted Time R 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And please read what I posted on your talk page in response to your note on mine:  we are not trying to help or hurt Hillary Clinton, or any subject,  we are trying to write a neutral encyclopedia article.  Please see edit summaries and talk comments for why editors are reverting your edits, and feel free to discuss, but don't keep changing them back. Tvoz |talk 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a joke... right? Adding a section called Gay rights and unfounded rumors of lesbianism is patently ridiculous. Why would we have a section on unfounded rumors? There have been so many unfounded rumors about Hillary Clinton that I find it rather suspect that this is the one you feel has to be added in. I also find it odd that you make clearly controversial edits followed by unnecessary "wikifying" of irrelevant words like child and seat. E343ll, I'll assume good faith and point you in the direction of the policy about undue weight. These rumors aren't relevant at all, and should without question be left out of the article. AniMate 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: She is not a lesbian

message: As IPs can't edit this article at this time, please dab Medicare wikilinks to Medicare (United States). -- 159.182.1.4 16:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks for spotting this and doing the dabs in the other articles.  Wasted Time R 16:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dab Medicare 

message: She is a Commisioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; shouldn't this be mentioned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.62.78 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I've added it.  Wasted Time R 16:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe