Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 1

message: Notice that her own widely-read book is not mentioned in References. And look at the reference that is there. Who's behind all this elaborate smear? "Anti=semitism"?  Accused by whom? why? I wouldn't edit this entry on a dare... [[Wetman}
I agree - I also think this run-on should be deleted, but fear editing it.  "The state and nature of their marriage has been the subject of much speculation, with some claiming it is a purely political arrangement and widespread stories about their regular arguments, but the fact remains that they have remained together (and whilst spending extended periods apart still vacation together, apparently) long after the political necessity for the marriage to stay together passed."  I think it's repetitive of the sentence before, and somewhat inappropriate.  Piha 17:21, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: FL of United States

message: Question: has Hillary done anything noteworthy as a senator yet? --Robert Merkel 01:09 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)
:I did try to include a header on this, but it was removed by Salazar. This does need research & inclusion. --allie 12:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: US Senator==/== Senate Election (2000) 

message: See  --Jiang 01:37, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moved 

message: This page doesn't mention Whitewater or her role in the health care plan, two of the things she's most famous for.  Also, some of the prose is fairly fawning; e.g., "the two were soon inseperable--partners in moot court, political campaigns, and matters of the heart".  Needs a neutral party to go over this and add facts, NPOV.  I don't know enough to do it. 
Meelar 19:55, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: I removed Hillary's signature from the page.  If it's going to be re-added, at least put it off to the side with a caption.  As it was it looked like an attempt at making it look like she signed the page.  But since I'm not sure her signature is relevant in the first place, I removed it rather than fixing it. anthony (see warning) 21:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Signature

message: Bill is not a "cowboy name", it's just the more common form.  Clinton himself goes by Bill in his everyday life; when he signed legislation, he signed with Bill; our article on him is at Bill Clinton, with William Clinton as a redirect.  In light of all this, I've changed it back. Cordially, Meelar 15:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's his formal name, but he is universally known as Bill.  If you and Clinton were at a party and you yelled, "Hey, William", he wouldn't know who you were referring to, while if you yelled "Hey Bill", he would turn and acknowledge you.  Bill is the far more recognized form, and should be the form used in the article.  It's the form the man himself goes by, I seriously doubt he'd be offended. Meelar 20:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming the husband

message: hi, i reverted your last edit to hillary clinton.  the edit summary was 'speculative & pov'.  i don't mean that you are actively attempting to insert pov, and later wished i could edit the summary.  but you can't.  what i really objected to was the phrasing 'liability' not 'controversial'.  as to speculative, i suppose what i really object to is the whole section.  it seems bizarre to dedicate a section about a possible run by someone who has no stated intention of running. Wolfman 02:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. You have a point that the whole section is speculative, but that's hardly grounds to revert my edit in particular. And I stand by my phrasing: the point is not that she necessarily is a liability, but that she could -- indeed almost certainly would -- be seen as one in some circles. If the article is going to cover the presidential speculation (and offer language bordering on POV praise), it ought to make this important point about it. RadicalSubversiv E 06:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As it turns out, you were right on the mark with this particular point. She is indeed perceived not only as a liability but a threat "in certain circles." That her intentions are not clearly stated by Clinton herself is not the point. Other people have stated this for her. Her own viability as a candidate is already considered a real possibility, and that is not speculative. Furthermore, what's "bizarre" about a politcal candidate who states that he/she has no intention of running for an elected office? Front-runners do it all the time. Radicalsubersiv was absolutely correct on this point. If anything, this paragraph will be continually updated with time. allie 15:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's keep it in the controversies section unless someone wants to pull out some noncontroversial sentences to form an independent section. luketh 02:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reversion

message: can we perhaps attribute the comment to a particular party then?  are we also allowed to repeat the prominent criticism (also without strong evidence) that Bush is a cokehead?  the Clinton is a rapist?  that Bush got a girl pregnant and paid for her abortion?   may I drudge up unsourced speculation as to Reagan's relationship with Nancy (and there is plenty)?  Is this a rumor-mongering operation or an encyclopedia? Wolfman 18:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not opposed to it being mentioned somewhere, possibly in a 'slander' or 'rumours' section which would be more politely titled.  But, here are my concerns:
#it can't possibly be rebutted as it is pure speculation with no evidence
#it is completely unsourced 
#it is out of place in the First Lady section -- whether she loves her husband has nothing to do with that role, that's a 'home life' issue.
#she herself has stated since the Lewinsky thing that she & Bill love each other very much.
#it's absurd to report every rumour of this type about every politician. in my experience, things of this nature simply don't get included in other articles about politicians.
#right-wing nuts also believe she ordered the murder of Vince Foster, does that go in too?  There's also an article accusing her of infidelity in newsmax, how about that?
#be aware that i'm not attacking you personally as POV for including this, i know your reputation for fairness. Wolfman 21:54, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I would have no problem with a 'controversy' section.  I think putting it in that section automatically makes it more NPOV.  As to speculation about real love in their married life, frankly it's none of our business.  What does it have to do with her importance?  Just put in the known facts: he's a serial cheater, she stood by him.  People stand by their cheating spouses all the time out of love, not political ambition.  See the forums at SurvivingInfidelity for hundreds of raw & painful examples.  As to why some initially took such a dislike to her, from my memories as a grad student in the early days, it was basically that she was treated as an equal, a modern woman entrusted with responsibility as an advisor.  That played very, very poorly among traditional elements in the South, where I grew up. Wolfman 03:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  smear? 

message: Added a link to the Village Voice with an article about her connection to Wal-Mart, which adds light to her attitude towards the working class. The content of the article could be summarized for the wikipedia article. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0021/harkavy.php Whyerd 13:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillary and Walmart 

message: This sentence is at the bottom of the paragraph, recently added:
:While a fundraising event in August 2000 allegedly cost more than $1.2 million, the indictment said, Rosen reported contributions of about $400,000, knowing the figure to be false.
I am not sure what this means. How can a fundraising event *cost* $1.2 million? Do you mean...it *raised* $1.2 million? Did Rosen report his *own contributions of $400,000, or did he pad the numbers? What citations, please? allie 15:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to Senator Paragraph

message: I have just removed:
:Ethnicity also played a factor: Clinton won 54% of the Jewish vote and more thab 89% of the African-American vote.
Ethnicity plays a factor in all American elections, and Democrats almost always win these kinds of majorities about Jewish and African American voters. Unless we're going to include a full breakdown of the vote by demographic subgroups, which strikes me as unnecessary, I think this kind of statement only serves to make POV insinuations about "ethnic" voters and Clinton's victory. Also, we need to cite a specific exit poll for: "over two-thirds of voters dismissed the 'carpetbagging' issue as unimportant" RadicalSubversiv E 06:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC
:Re: exit polls. That's all probably a matter of public information, I would assume. Unfortunately, my handy-dandy Encyclopedia of New York City, which contains just that sort of info, is dated 1998. Any ideas? Re: "carpetbagging: I just feel it's important to keep the "carpetbagging" issue in perspective, in ordr to retain NPOV as well.
:As far as her contributions to the two Legislative Sessions, it's on her website, but this is NOT my field of expertise, and the Adobe Version is giving me a headache. Care to take a stab at it? Many thanks. allie 07:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do some searching for the exit poll data. It was probably reported in the Times after the election. Her legislative record is a trickier subject -- ironically, Congressional websites aren't the best source for this information, because our congresscritters are so good at exaggerating their own importance in virtually everything. RadicalSubversiv E 07:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. All I know is that her Adobe Acrobat is giving me a headache. Do I need to read about the Syracuse Basketball Team? Many thanks. allie 07:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Senate election results

message: At this point, there are certainly plently listed in this article. However, they're all over the place, and not necessarily in order. Whitewater pops up while she's in Arkansas, when it was actually more relevant in the context of when she was First Lady. How about a new section, "Controversial Issues" in a chronological format? Name it any way you want - but it's beginning to look like a better way to approach it for the sake of formatting the article. Any comments? In addition, I did try to include something about her contributions as Senator, but the headings were deleted. Certainly, there is something that can be summarized to retain a NPOV???   allie 01:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks great, don't you think? Can we do this kind of sub-heading for the remainder of the article? There are so MANY contributors that it might provide a logical method to maintain a cleaner overall format, similar to the Margaret Thatcher page (there's a study in contrast, but strictly in terms of article format...) And btw...the reference to her brother and a "medicine man" is vague, at best. If it was indeed worthy of note...it should be clarified and some cite, yes? Many thanks, allie 18:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies & Hillary Clinton

message: MERC isn't a starndard abbreviation - it doesn't link to any of the exchange sites/which one? Chicago or New York? Thanks. allie 20:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MERC

message: Why is it not mentioned anywhere that Hillary Clinton was on the Walmart Board of Directors while down in Arkansas?  I think this is an important pieice of information and I know know if it has been left off because of the distaste her party, the Demcratic Party, has for Walmart or it was just a general over sight?  --Nick Berardi 15:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillary on Walmart Board of Directors 

message: Mrs. Clinton's brother Hugh Rodham obtained presidential pardons for Carlos Vignali, Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell, sparking a controversy in some circles over the money Hugh Rodham received for the deal.
If this is relevant enough to warrant inclusion, it will need to be given context and explanation. Who are these guys, what did they do, and why is it mentioned here? The sentence seems like it would fit better in Hugh's article. Mr. Billion 08:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excised text