Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 3

message: The controversies section is getting a bit out of control. Let's try to tighten it up, listing the essential controversies without overwhelming the article. luketh 22:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a Trivia section, an idea that we discussed a long time ago, and that we implemented for some time. There was some disagreement over it a few months ago, but I think everyone will agree that some of these sections are just good-humored fun and don't belong in a Controversies section. If they are to be in the Controversies section, then they need to be controversial. luketh 22:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree they don't belong in the regular Controversies section, since they don't bear on political, legal, or ethical matters.  We used to have a section called "Cultural issues" or something like that, which most of them involve.  Somebody changed it to "Additional information", which is useless.  I also object to "Trivia"; to me, anything that is trivial doesn't deserve to be here at all.  So some name for this section needs to be found.   Wasted Time R 22:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Trivial information can be fun and it can give insight into a person's character. But....you're the more persistent one, Wasted, so make the changes you want. I guess this is probably a wasted sentence, but try not to trash Clinton too much. She's a great political figure. luketh 23:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the fun/insight, I just don't like calling it "Trivia".  I've named this section "Cultural matters" for now.  It's important to keep these items out of "Controversies" since they don't rise to that level of seriousness.  As for trashing Clinton, let it be known that I'm the person who created the "United States Senator" section; before me there was nothing about her work in the Senate.  I'm also the person who created the "Awards and Honors" section.  I'm not out to trash her or to venerate her, just to tell her story.   Wasted Time R 23:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "United States Senator" and "Awards and Honors" sections were good ideas. Certainly better than the rumor and gossip in the Controversies section. Not all sections in the Controversies section are rumor and gossip but some definitely are, e.g., Book Deal, Hasidic Pardons, Vince Foster. Did you see the interview by Jimbo on CNN? He had to shut down a page because the subject of the page complained that his page was filled with rumor and gossip. To keep Wikipedia viable, we need to make pages that will not be shut down for too much rumor and gossip. luketh 05:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those items you mention are common allegations made against her.  The Wikipedia article can either remain silent on them, and have casual readers wonder if they are true and have partisan editors occasionally add in bits saying that they are true, or the article can discuss and refute them, and thereby inform the casual reader and preempt the partisan editors.  The latter course seems to me to be clearly preferable.    Wasted Time R 12:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I spoke too broadly here.  A lot of lurid things have been said about HRC's personal life that are not in the article, nor should they be.  I think the that Black Panthers (which you tried to take out), Book Deal, and Hasidic Pardons subsections are all legitimate subjects, since they deal with ethical issues and (in the latter two) questions of the public trust.  The Vince Foster subsection, on the other hand, concerns lurid allegations with no basis in reality, and I wouldn't be adverse to its removal.   Wasted Time R 15:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a reasonable compromise. luketh 05:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I do agree with your removal of the "Clinton's voice" subsection, that was very weak.   Wasted Time R 12:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Let me say again that your work on this page has been quite good. luketh 05:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies and Trivia

message: I think HRC's embrace of Mrs. Arafat after Mrs. Arafat made inflammatory remarks at a conference would qualify as a controversy.  13:50, 11 October 2005 155.212.56.5
:Yes.  Go add it.   Wasted Time R 14:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Was this ever added?  It's not there right now. Ken Arromdee 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now written a subsection on it.   Wasted Time R 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And, as an extra special bonus, no added cost to you the reader, I've also written a subsection on the amusing "seances with Eleanor Roosevelt" mini-flap!    Wasted Time R 16:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But wait, there's still more!  Two of Hillary's most famous remarks, about Tammy Wynette and about baking cookies, strangely absent from this article after all this time.  Not any longer!    Wasted Time R 17:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Arafat embrace to Controversies? And more! 

message: I see frequent references to "Senator Clinton" where I would expect to see "Clinton".  I thought the Wikipedia style for biographical articles was not to repeat the subject's title or first name throughout the article.
:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)
:After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only.
Is there a reason for this, or is this just the way the article has been edited thus far? patsw 03:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was partly to avoid confusion with President Clinton, but mostly due to LukeTH (the main architect of this article) and his reverence for the article's subject.    Wasted Time R 03:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure that this is true. I DID change uses of "Hillary" to "Senator Clinton" but it would have been just as fine with "Clinton" instead. If I remember correctly, wasn't it you, Wasted, who didn't like "Clinton" because of potential confusion with President Clinton? I'm fine with "Clinton," "Senator Clinton," or "Mrs. Clinton," but "Hillary" isn't appropriate.  luketh 02:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, many of the "Senator" references are from the Political Views section, which you wrote most of, but if you weren't the one, I apologise.  I happen to like the use of "Senator" because it avoids some spots of confusion with Bill, and also because it differentiates statements she made as First Lady from statements she made as Senator.  On the other hand I could see why some people might object to it as fawning in tone.  So I'm neutral overall.   Wasted Time R 02:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, I did write the "Senator" references. Sorry that I misinterpreted your earlier comment. I'm also neutral on this. Patsw, please change the references to "Clinton" as you please. luketh 06:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Senator" 

message: The way I see it, calling it "her book" is complex and unncessarily contentious.  I think the more neutral and accurate description is "the book".  Discuss...   --SpinyNorman 04:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Standard English dictates that "her book" means "the book that belongs to Clinton." It does belong to her, and I doubt anyone has any contention there: Her name is on the cover. It does not imply that she wrote it, especially considering that the ghostwriter thing is mentioned immediately following the mention of her book. It's no different than it would be for Rush Limbaugh's book The Way Things Ought To Be (also ghostwritten), or any other author (or "author", if you please): The person whose name is on the cover and on the royalty checks "owns" the book. "The book" is unnecessarily vague and confusing, and I don't think it really belongs. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what you mean about "vague and confusing".  In the context, only one book and one person are being discussed.  The phrase "the book" leave's no doubt as to which book we are referring.  If the discussion was about several books, then I'd agree, but it isn't. And, I'm sorry but, in a section entitled "Clinton's Writings and Recording", it does imply that she wrote it.  As far as the Limbaugh example does, I'd say the same thing about him.  In fact, I may just visit his page (though I'll probably have to wash my hands when I'm finished) and see if there are any contributions along these lines that I can make as an offer to demonstrate some objectivity on my part.  Though I am curious why you mention Rush to someone whom you clearly see as critical of Hillary Clinton.  Do you assume that because I make what some would describe as "unflattering" modifications to a Hillary Clinton article, that I am a conservative?  Would it put you at ease at all if I told you that I am a lifelong registered Democrat and proud, outspoken lefty?  Just curious...  --SpinyNorman 04:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Democrats tend to hate Hillary even more than Republicans, so it's no surprise.  Most of the serious anti-Hillary editing on this article (as opposed to random vandalisms) have come from Democrats or "lefties".   Wasted Time R 04:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, I don't "hate" Hillary (not that I thought you were suggesting that I personally did, just some Democrats in general) but I notice that she seems to sort of a "cult" figure in the sense that her supporters tend to be a bit over-complimentary of her.  I'd hate for this article to turn into a hagiography, that's why I'm playing "devil's advocate".  I think this page could use some reasoned criticism from the left.  --SpinyNorman 05:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Just tried to pick a random person opposite the spectrum to toss out. I could have picked pretty much any politician or political figure, really, but Limbaugh came to mind first. And, incidentally, not that it really matters, but I really despise Hillary as well. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If it's published under her name, it's her book.  Just like Pet Sounds is the Beach Boys' album, even though they didn't play on it.  Just like George Bush's speech on topic X is his speech, even though he didn't write it.  Just like the press release under company Y's CEO's name is his/her statement, even though some public relations flak in the home office wrote it.  Wasted Time R 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Her book" vs "The book"

message: > [From above] I'd hate for this article to turn into a hagiography, that's why I'm playing "devil's advocate". I think this page could use some reasoned criticism from the left. --SpinyNorman 05:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As another example, I just realized the phrase "Hillarycare" was never mentioned here. Since the term is still being actively used in political discourse, that's a pretty bad omission, which I've now remedied, with a couple of recent uses of it.   Wasted Time R 18:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hagiography?

message: It seems totally unnecessary to insert into our introduction of Hillary Clinton a description of her husband as "scandal-plagued". It is clearly a pejorative phrase, and there is no more reason for including it than there would be of calling him "peace-loving" or "popular".  We don't need to summarize his presidency, and even if we did, we would need to do so in an NPOV manner. -Willmcw 01:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Anons try to put junk like that into the intro all the time.  The intro to this article is very basic and ultra-factual and should stay like that.   Wasted Time R 02:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scandal-plagued" 

message: Here's what I think about this section.  What is currently the second paragraph:
:In 1996 Hillary Clinton was accused by the Senate Special Whitewater Committee of ordering the removal of potentially damaging files (related to Whitewater or other matters) from Foster's office on the night of his death.   Independent Counsel Starr investigated this, and by 1999 Starr was reported to still be holding the investigation open, despite his staff having told him there was no case.   When Starr's successor Robert Ray issued his final Whitewater reports in 2000, no claims were made against Hillary Clinton in this regard.
needs to be here.  This discusses a "mainstream", non-lurid charge and investigation, made by official government bodies.  It's in the same class as Whitewater, Travelgate, and Filegate, all of which are covered in the article.
Given that some mention of Vince Foster has to be made, what is currently the first paragraph:
:On July 20, 1993, White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster committed suicide. The general Whitewater investigation included an examination of Foster's death and the circumstances around it. Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation, as well as investigations by the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the U.S. Park Police, all concluded that Foster's death was indeed a suicide.
needs to be here as well.  Even though the official investigations of his death weren't HRC-related, including this here seems to be worthwhile in context and will set the record straight and help preempt conspiracy-minded editors.
That leaves us with what is currently the third paragraph:
:Other critics of the Clintons have made more lurid allegations: that Foster's death was not a suicide, that it was connected to Whitewater, and that Hillary Clinton was somehow involved by covering up activities together with Foster before his death  or in that her relationship with Foster was an intimate one .  Some conspiracy theories even claimed that she had killed Foster herself  or had him killed .  No credible evidence or charges were ever brought forward in connection with any of these allegations.
This is much more problematic.  In a better world, this material would not be in the article.  But the Internet in general and Wikipedia in particular are not a better world; rumor and wild accusations and conspiracy theories are hard to keep under wraps.  In a different case, I argued strongly against putting wild, lurid speculation into the article of a prominent Republican politician and commentator, but it's still in there.  Ever since the Vince Foster section was taken out, editors have been putting this kind of material back in.  Realistically, it's probably best at this point to include the material as stated above, which at least emphasizes the nonworthiness of the allegations.  Gamaliel, what do you think about this?  You are the one who has the sectNPOV tag in currently.    Wasted Time R 17:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to revert your changes to this section.  First, your analogy with the O.J. case is not pertinent.  O.J. was found not guilty in one court, but responsible in another court, showing a difference in outcomes within the judicial system.  With Foster, however, all four investigations in the judicial system or other official bodies have ruled the same way, that his death was a suicide.  And one of these investigations, Starr's, was heavily anti-Clinton to begin with and thus its finding is especially significant.  So while it is true that some people still don't believe in this finding, Wikipedia cannot give their views as much weight as your text does.  Second, you eliminated entirely the paragraph about the Senate and Starr's investigation into whether HRC ordered the removal of papers after Foster's death.  Why?  An official investigation and outcome such as that deserves to be described.  Wasted Time R 04:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed, there hasn't been any further discussion, so removing the sectNPOV tag is appropriate.  Wasted Time R 11:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Vince Foster section 

message: I think this section is fine as is.  We have the primary accusation by Bill O'Reilly in his own words and a rebuttal by Hillary Clinton in her own words.  Clinton was responding to a question direectly about O'Reilly, so I think he really is the main player in this controversy.
Also, the link provided to Goldberg's site was not a news report, as it was represented originally, but an opinion piece.  It's clear that she didn't actually interview firemen and police officers to find out the truth about this controversy.  She's exploring possible reasons for Hillary being booed and this is one of the reasons she comes up with. I think it is highly misleading to present it as anything but speculation on her part.  - Maximusveritas 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attendance at funerals after September 11