Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 5

message: I came here to refresh my memory of Hillary Clinton.  Oddly, I didn't see any information on the White Water scandal, the Rose Lawfirm billing records controversy, her 1000% profit of "cattle futures" speculation, her relationship to Vincy Foster, etc.  I don;t see any of these mentioned let alone details (e.g. there was a legal subpena for her billing records when she worked for the Rose lawfirm, she said she could not find them for years and then a White House staffer found them just lying on top of a table in the White House).  Why not details, let alone a mention?  These were big deals in the 1990s.  They were covered extensivly in the media but no mention here.
Another poster said there was too much about controversies.  I agree that  this should be an objective biography that doesn't focus on scandal but the scandals should be at least breifly mentioned and then developed in its own page.  George W Bush's page includes ALL of his scandals.  Is Hillary immune for some reason from even handed treatment?  (this comment was posted by IP address User:71.197.138.180 at 12:25, 20 January 2007) moved to bottom of page
::Not true - read the article.  In Table of Contents there is an entry for "Controversies" - that section directs you to an entire article about Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies.  This has not been ignored at all - to include it all in this main article would make it way too big.  (Also please sign talkpage entries with  ~~~~  and place new ones on the bottom of the page.) Tvoz | talk 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to jump to any conclusions about pr staffs here - this is a huge article, and the editors felt a need to make it more manageable, that's all. I would think that a very short summary of controversies with a pointer to the main artcicle about the controversies would  be ok, and in keeping with most articles that have forked off sections, but the problem may be in how to do that without adding a laundry list here.  If you're so inclined, why don't you take a stab at it and see if it's doable. Tvoz | talk 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's the Information?

message: Swedish newspapers are reporting that Hillary Clinton has confirmed running for president 2008.Unsigned comment by User:83.233.146.197
:They may not be tuned into the subtleties of American presidential campaign finance law - technically she has formed a "presidential exploratory committee" which means she has not exactly declared that she is running for President, only that she is seriously exploring the possibility of doing so. There are financial reasons (and perhaps other reasons) to follow this procedure, but it usually results in the person actually announcing candidacy a fairly short time later.  For all intents and purposes we can probably assume that she is going to run, but the correct terminology right now is that she's formed an exploratory committee.   Or at least that's the way I understand it.  Tvoz | talk 03:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right. The newspaper is just stating the obvious; "I'm in. And I'm in to win." shows her position quite clearly. http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,980443,00.html | At the very least the article should comment on this "presidential exploratory committee". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.233.146.197 (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the "I'm in...." statement to the section, to indicate that she has made clear that she is running.   Wasted Time R 01:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidential election

message: If she wins, it will divide the country. divider B
a uniter--Lerdthenerd 11:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, maybe we should have a straw poll.          I'm kidding.Tvoz | talk 02:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Hillary a divider or an uniter?

message: I have a specific proposal to make the article a little more objective. Right now, the controversy section consists ONLY of a link to a different article.  A whole section heading is dedicated toa single link.  I propose that we add a few sentences or a paragraph along the following lines:
===Proposal #1===
Like most controvertial politicians with long public careers, Hillary has been accused of involvment in various scandals.  For a detailed list of controversies surrounding Hillary see the page "Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies."
===Proposal #2===
Like most controvertial politicians with long public careers, Hillary has been accused of involvment in various scandals.  Opponants have raised questions regarding her investment in cattle futures, her failure to produce billing records from her time as a lawyer at the Rose Lawfirm, and firing White House employees for political reasons, to name just a few.   For a detailed list of controversies surrounding Hillary see the page "Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies."
[Comment posted by 21:14, 20 January 2007 71.197.138.180]
::The second one is POV and the first doesn;t really add anything.  Neither makes the article more objective.  Someone forked off the awards without summarizing them and I don't see the need to summarize the controversies. Which ones do you include?  How do you word it in a neutral manner - if you add a few here that gives them undue weight.   I say leave it as it is, just a pointer.  Lots of articles do exactly that.  06:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I and another editor did do, was to briefly mention in the chrono bio mainline sections the most serious of the controversies — cattle futures, Whitewater/Rose Law, Foster, Travelgate, Filegate, i.e. the ones that warranted official investigations — with wlinks to the fuller treatments on the Controversies page.  That way they don't go completely unmentioned, and it increases the likelihood that someone will realize the Controversies page is there.  As for the intro, it does not say she was controversial, but it does mention that as First Lady she was the subject of several official enquiries (simple fact), was the first FL to testify before a grand jury (simple fact), but was never officially charged with anything (simple fact).  To me, this gives reasonable balance.   Wasted Time R 12:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Proposal

message: Like most controvertial politicians with long public careers, Hillary has been accused of involvment in various scandals.  Opponants have raised questions regarding her investment in cattle futures, her failure to produce billing records from her time as a lawyer at the Rose Lawfirm, and firing White House employees for political reasons, to name just a few.   For a detailed list of controversies surrounding Hillary see the page "Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies."
[Comment posted by 21:14, 20 January 2007 71.197.138.180]
::The second one is POV and the first doesn;t really add anything.  Neither makes the article more objective.  Someone forked off the awards without summarizing them and I don't see the need to summarize the controversies. Which ones do you include?  How do you word it in a neutral manner - if you add a few here that gives them undue weight.   I say leave it as it is, just a pointer.  Lots of articles do exactly that.  06:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I and another editor did do, was to briefly mention in the chrono bio mainline sections the most serious of the controversies — cattle futures, Whitewater/Rose Law, Foster, Travelgate, Filegate, i.e. the ones that warranted official investigations — with wlinks to the fuller treatments on the Controversies page.  That way they don't go completely unmentioned, and it increases the likelihood that someone will realize the Controversies page is there.  As for the intro, it does not say she was controversial, but it does mention that as First Lady she was the subject of several official enquiries (simple fact), was the first FL to testify before a grand jury (simple fact), but was never officially charged with anything (simple fact).  To me, this gives reasonable balance.   Wasted Time R 12:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal #2

message: This picture does not illustrate the text of this article, and the posting, re-posting,  resizing so that only the caption shows,  with misleading edit summaries, is veering towards vandalism.  Tvoz | talk 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. When I first erased the picture I said this in my edit summary: "nothing wrong with the picture but why is that picture in that section, it should be in the controversy article" to which I received a response of "readded pic; segregation ended in the 50s." Odd response and not something I would expect from a non-emotional neutral editor. Gdo01 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors do not have to be neutral. Articles do. And emotion plays no part here. You are all engaging in a whitewashing. This "article" reads as political campaign ad for Clinton. It does not give an impartial view of who she really is. --Jayzel 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. I think it has been already agreed that summary of criticism section is coming back and I hope it will be agreed soon that your POV image without any explanation will not be readded. Thank you for understanding.--Pethr 05:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Chung relates to the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy, which for the very large part never touched on Hillary herself, but rather Bill, Bill's campaign organizations, and some Clinton Administration figures.  HRC controversies have to relate to HRC herself, not just the Clinton Administration in general.  Thus, I've never written anything on it for the Controversies page.  I could be wrong and am willing to change my view, but such a contribution would need a lot stronger sourcing than just a photo shoved in.   Wasted Time R 13:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, would the First Lady's office count as eligible? Justice Department prosecutors stated the evidence suggested both the President and First Lady's offices were aware of the foreign funds entering the campaign. As for use of this specific photo, no biggee for me if it is added or not added. I was mostly looking to get a conversation started about the almost total lack of anything even remotely critical being in the article. Regards, --Jayzel 14:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I must have missed that the first time around.  It's a little borderline, but on balance I think it warrants inclusion.  I've added it as Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies#Role_in_1996_campaign_finance_controversy; take a look and see what you think.   Wasted Time R 15:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do a little digging today and get more information. If I remember correctly there was an issue regarding Johnny Chung delivering money to one of Hillary's assistants (Maggie something, I think) inside the White House itself (which is against the law) and her accepting it. --Jayzel 15:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and of course there is the matter where Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's partner testified in court that the First Lady was involved in the selling of Commerce Department Trade mission plane seats for campaign donations. --Jayzel 16:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this sounds a bit like self-serving hearsay to me, but I've added it.  Wasted Time R 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 99% of the "controversies" are hearsay and innuendo.  BUt some people seem to want to add them here and call that "objectivity".  Frankly, that's a laugh.  And I thought we had problems editing the Obama page.  Tvoz | talk 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heresay, given an enormous amount of credibility when the Commerce Department got caught shredding government documents. Regards, --Jayzel 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  chung 

message: I added the POV tag because in an article 63 kilobytes in size detailing the life of one of the most controversial and polarizing figures in American politics there is 0 reference to anything even remotely unflattering. This here article is nothing but sunshine and puppy dogs. Can we get a little reality added? --Jayzel 05:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this 37 kb article: Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies? Gdo01 05:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Segregation of information you do not like, but is real and valid, does not make this article neutral. Wikipedia is not Hillary's personal campaign web site. You cannot deepsix and bury accurate information here. --Jayzel 05:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand, the controversy sections was "segregated" because the article was becoming overly long and inflated with criticism. People had to keep on compressing the criticism which eliminated precious details from the article. As you can see that has been done on the George W. Bush article which had this problem to the extreme. On the other hand, I agree with you somewhat. As stated on WP:SIZE: "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary." Basically this article needs a small summary of the gist of the criticism and not just a link to an article. Gdo01 05:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good sized-summary would be a good start, but there still doesn't need to be a clumping of the info under the catch-all banner "Controversies". There needs to be more sprinkling of info throughout the entire article. For example: The Rose Law firm. It is briefly mentioned as a side note. This was an important time in her life and two of her closest long-time friends worked with her there yet there is no mention of them (Webster Hubble and Vince Foster). I'm not talking about adding conspiracies, I'm just talking about adding brief mentions of important factual events and important people in her life. The article comes across as timid and whitewashed when it dances around all these issues. It almost seems afraid to even approach anything of note. --Jayzel 05:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, feel free to add whatever you like. If it is well sourced and others find it relevant as well it will stay. Apart from criticism summary, is there any other reason for NPOV tag?--Pethr 05:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry for tag removal, wasn't willful. In fact I have no idea how it has happened.--Pethr 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No prob! --Jayzel 05:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed the NPOV tag. I am happy with the additions so far, though I will continue to look for ways for additional info to be added without adding to the overall size of the article. Regards, --Jayzel 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Some editors say criticisms were taken out because the article was too long but notice there is a whole section on awards and honors!  There's enough room for awards but not controversies?  Sorry, that is NPOV on the face of it.
Further, are some of the more central scandals of her life more important to understanding her biography than her "Living Legacy Award" from the Women's International Center???  Why don't we put a picture of her trophy mantle and her girl scout's patches.   [16:26, 21 January 2007 71.197.138.180]
:Lol. Cute idea. Please sign your posts, though. Either type in 4 "tildas" or click the signature icon in the middle of the button row just above the field that you type your message into. Regards, --Jayzel 16:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your point about the awards sections, by the way. --Jayzel 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the moving out of the Awards and Honors to a separate subarticle.  I've done some renaming and linking, however, to get it in consistent form with the other such subarticles.   Wasted Time R 17:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Tag (again)

message: The following sentence in the intro needs to be taken out: "Her prominent role has been often controversial, and generated debate on the changing status of women in America.  She has often been referred to as one of the most polarizing figures in American politics.Gil Troy. Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. University Press of Kansas, 2006. .
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1229053,00.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5560786
" It is NOT because I don't agree with the statement, but this is information that should instead be presented in the body of the article, not the introduction. The reader can easily make his own conclusion after reading through the Controversy sections. The intro should present just the plain facts, i.e. the major bills she initiated and the Senate committees she sits on. A single sentence like this in the intro cannot possibly give a sufficiently neutral impression or explain the debate. "Controversial" and "polarizing" means nothing unless you give the reader some background info first, but in that case we would need to write a really long intro to summarize the controversy, like the article on George W. Bush does. So let's just leave all the debates and controversy to the body text, where an in-depth discussion can achieve NPOV. KeL 17:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The plain fact is she is a polarizing figure. She is far better known for her controversies than for any bill she signed off on. And besides, there is no controversy section in the article. It's all been segregated. All that's left is superficial info and cold stats. Regards,  --Jayzel 18:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The test for an intro is, if a Martian came to Earth and read just the intro, would they get a good idea of what the article subject is about.  Without mentioning controversy and polarization, I think the HRC intro fails the test.   Wasted Time R 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Clinton is controversial, but you can't just say that in a single sentence in the intro, without any background for the Martian. Take a look at a the George W. Bush article. Do you think a Martian would understand why Bush is controversial if the intro didn't have all the paragraphs explaining the 2000 presidential election, the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina? Now imagine deleting all those paragraphs and replacing it with a single sentence "Bush is considered one of the most polarizing figures in American politics." What is the Martian supposed to think? That's exactly what this sentence here was doing to the intro. If you are prepared to write ten paragraphs in the intro to give proper context, then go ahead. Otherwise, it is extremely unfair to call someone controversial in a sentence, and just leave it at that without reason. That's the whole point of having facts in the intro, and discussion in the body. KeL 19:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a martian were able to read an intro and fully understand a topic why would we have the body?  That is called the Cliff's Notes.  I think an intro should set the table for the body to come.  When a person is largely defined in the public by the controversy that surrounds them, then it is appropriate to mention that in their intro.  That is like saying you can't call MLK a civil rights leader in the intro because you don't explain what civil rights he was for and the leadership that he displayed.Oconp88 16:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro sentence

message: Anyone know her position on the war on drugs? I can't find it anywhere, even though I have been searching for it all day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.244.184 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position on the war on drugs 

message: What will Bill Clinton's title be if she wins, First Lord? --Vladko 07:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He would continue to be called President Clinton, just like  George H.W. Bush is still called President Bush. In this case it would Mr. President and Madam President.  I'm sure it's hard for some people to get their minds around a female President, but get used to it - if it doesn't happen this time, it will soon.  And the sky won't fall. Tvoz | talk 06:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back before this article became semi-protected, it was constantly vandalized by anons, and if you actually looked at those vandalisms, you could get a real sense of the Other at play.   Wasted Time R 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I am sure that is true.  As I've said, take a look at Obama's "move" history, and much more. Tvoz | talk 03:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Back to the White House? 

message: Why is this at "Hillary Rodham Clinton"? Even her own campaign website HillaryClinton.com calls her "Hillary Clinton". "Hillary Clinton" gets over four times as many Google hits as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Timrollpickering 07:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because whenever it's come up before people who haven't read the naming conventions have argued against it. I'm just going to move it now — it's a perfectly clear application of the common name rule, and the only argument to the contrary is nonsense like "Wikipedia says call people by what they call themselves" (which came up in the last discussion). Proteus (Talk) 09:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no complaint against the move, but you need to do the cleanup associated with the move.  There are numerous places inside the article which need to be shorted from "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton" and there are several child articles which need to be renamed to match the parent article.  Please, don't do only part of the job.  Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those places inside the article need to stay as they are.  Her official name is Hillary Rodham Clinton (look at her signature in the infobox) and when she became First Lady she made a special point of saying this was her name (the Controversies article has more details and a cite).  Moreover, the child articles don't need to be changed, because they aren't the subject of Google searches, which is the rationale for the change of the main article.  There's no need for a lot of busy-work here; Proteus has got the article name change that he's been hankering for for so long, let it sit at that.   Wasted Time R 00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, you are very right.  I just looked at her official Senate page, and it lists her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  Based on that I'd say the article should be changed back.  The press usually refers to her as just "Hillary Clinton" these days, but I believe the official Senate page trumps press short hand any day.  The move on an article like this really should have gone through more discussion and if it hasn't changed back in the next couple of days I'll probably do the move myself or at least put it on WP:RM. --StuffOfInterest 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just writing essentially the same thing as Stuff -  her campaign site calls her "Hillary" more than anything - and her official Senate website is Hillary Rodham Clinton. I would also like to hear what the page editors have to say and would have preferred our reaching consensus before moving the page, especially since there indeed are quite a few "daughter" pages.  "Hillary Clinton" redirected here - why was it a problem and why a rush?   Tvoz | talk 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an even wider ripple effect to a change than you might think, as besides the daughter articles there is also a Wikicommons article, a Wikiquote article, a Category ...    Wasted Time R 00:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There was a discussion of this last year, you can read it at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_4#Article_title.  Opinion was divided, and so nothing was done.  Then Proteus took it upon himself to do it now, without further discussion.  As the archive shows, I was in favor of leaving the article title at Hillary Rodham Clinton, so a move back to that is fine with me.   Wasted Time R 00:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've changed it back along with the redirects.  If Proteus wants to try that again he needs to hold a proper discussion and gain consensus.  My primary reasoning on changing back is her official Senate page, which uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in both print and in her signature.  What the press chooses to call her isn't relevant.  She uses HRC, so this seems the most appropriate naming. --StuffOfInterest 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I agree with the reinstatement. Tvoz | talk 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I would perform the move myself, but I am not too familiar with the process and don't want to mess it up. But it's clear that in this case, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is more appropriate than "Hillary Clinton". And the consensus in news media is also "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Correctness should take precedence over Google hits. KeL 03:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect was unfortunately vandalized so it's not so easy to move this article back. I requested that move hopefully it will be resolved rather quickly.--Pethr 05:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked admin User:StuffOfInterest to change it back again - the name should be Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Hang on, I'm sure Stuff will be along soon to fix it again.  Tvoz | talk 06:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I see someone had put a post on WP:RM before I posted here.  Thanks.  I've put some more info on the request to see if another admin wants to take care of it this time.  Still watching. --StuffOfInterest 12:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This really really needs to be run through a requested moves to settle the location on this. "Hillary Clinton" is certainly how best she's known (especially internationally) and is the name the campaign is using - the campaign site is "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee" (my emphasis) so abitarily picking on the use on the Senate site or declaring that the name used for her campaign URL is opposition party POV seems very strange to me. Timrollpickering 12:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The real issue is which name is "correct", not which name is used more often. What people call her at the dinner table is irrelevent. Ninety percent of people like to use the name "killer whale" for an orca. They also like to call Pluto a planet. But the fact is the Rodham name has never been dropped either officially or in practice. She and the news media has used "Hillary Rodham Clinton" since her days as First Lady. KeL 15:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please go on and write Senator Clinton e-mail describing how stupid she is that she can't use her correct name and she is messing up even her own signature. I'm sure she will be so embarrassed that she will start to use her "correct" name immadiately. You really want to shorten her name despite this?--Pethr 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've misread what I wrote here. I was arguing the exact opposite: that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is the correct name, and it doesn't matter what the common people like to call her. KeL 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't replying to you;) Article is back, thanks everyone.--Pethr 17:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know how you judge more common usage, but she uses and even signs her full name and media use her full name as well. As others tried to demonstrate in previous discussions on this subject she made it clear that she wants to use and be known by her full name. I tried to search CNN and it seems they respect this. I don't think the long name is problem because there is of course redirect and google links to this article on the third place only after her official sites no matter what you search for. Is there any particular reason why this article should be moved?--Pethr 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The link Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) which you provided also mentions that the common name rule is not absolute. Please read the section under Do not overdo it. Maiden names are an especially sensitive issue that require special consideration to avoid offense or confusion. In this case it is very clear that she has never dropped the Rodham name either officially or in practice. And the mainstream media also take the cautious approach by referring to her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Another example: Teresa Heinz has never adopted the Kerry name, and it does not matter how many millions of Americans called her Teresa Kerry back in 2004. Dropping the maiden name can be both offensive and misleading. The policy clearly states that in such cases use widely known alternatives, which in this case is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Honestly, it's worrying when people blindly assert the naming policy without regard to special circumstances. If you want to debate whether this is an exceptional case that's fine, but don't accuse people of not reading the naming conventions just because you happen to disagree. KeL 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As another example of where "common usage" does not hold sway, the article on Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is properly located there, even though that name is out-googled by Jacqueline Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy, and most of all Jackie O.  (And all of these forms bring up the Wikipedia article as the first hit, showing that there is no loss of "findability" by using the correct form.)  Wasted Time R 00:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: With two changes (without established consensus) and reverts in the last couple of weeks, I have no objection to move protection.  What bothered me even more with the latest move was that the instigator did none of the cleanup work which goes along with a move.  As I've said elsewhere, a post on WP:RFPP explaining the two move and reverts with a pointer to the discussion here should be enough.  This page is high-profile enough that this level of protection is warranted.  If someone thinks it needs moved in the future, once consensus is established they can post on WP:RM to make the move happen. --StuffOfInterest 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also support move protection.  Wasted Time R 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the admin who moved the page back this last time, I made sure to edit the redirect at Hillary Clinton afterwards. This has the effect that no-one except an administrator can move the article over it. It doesn't stop a vandal moving "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to any other (unoccupied) title, but it means that a move back to "Hillary Clinton" would need to go through the proper channels. I'm not saying that it couldn't or shouldn't be move protected, merely that it may not be necessary. --Stemonitis 23:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that, pretty clever. I think it's sufficient. Thank you.--Pethr 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me too for now - we did have one attempt at vandalizing the name during the last round of name chnge, but perhaps it was coincidental, so sure, let's see what happens now. I have no great desire to write up a request! Tvoz | talk 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article location 

message: I propose we request move-protection for this article which would prevent random location changes (i.e., prevent people changing the name of the article at will) - this has been done on other pages, and it means that anyone wanting to change the name would have to come here to discuss it, and hopefully we would reach consensus on it.  Vandals who want to rename the page (as was done in the last round) would be thwarted and well-meaning editors who want to see it changed would read the consensus opinion and raise their objections here.  The semi-protection of the page against IP edits would stay exactly as it is - this is only about the name/location of the page.  Seems to me the consensus here is that the proper name of the article is Hillary Rodham Clinton, with of course Hilary Clinton redirecting here for anyone who uses that shorter version. I see no downside to this - everyone will be able to read the article, but this is her "correct" name, as has been discussed above. And we avoid all of the problems with sub-pages and other redirects, etc.  Any thoughts on this? Tvoz | talk 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With two changes (without established consensus) and reverts in the last couple of weeks, I have no objection to move protection.  What bothered me even more with the latest move was that the instigator did none of the cleanup work which goes along with a move.  As I've said elsewhere, a post on WP:RFPP explaining the two move and reverts with a pointer to the discussion here should be enough.  This page is high-profile enough that this level of protection is warranted.  If someone thinks it needs moved in the future, once consensus is established they can post on WP:RM to make the move happen. --StuffOfInterest 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also support move protection.  Wasted Time R 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the admin who moved the page back this last time, I made sure to edit the redirect at Hillary Clinton afterwards. This has the effect that no-one except an administrator can move the article over it. It doesn't stop a vandal moving "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to any other (unoccupied) title, but it means that a move back to "Hillary Clinton" would need to go through the proper channels. I'm not saying that it couldn't or shouldn't be move protected, merely that it may not be necessary. --Stemonitis 23:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that, pretty clever. I think it's sufficient. Thank you.--Pethr 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me too for now - we did have one attempt at vandalizing the name during the last round of name chnge, but perhaps it was coincidental, so sure, let's see what happens now. I have no great desire to write up a request! Tvoz | talk 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: move protection

message: Just want to bring this back up briefly because, although the article is long, I am in general opposed to sections (particularly sections with the potential for POV issues) to consist solely of a wikilink.  I personally think that a brief sentence (which may "add nothing" substantive) such as "Clinton, like many politicians, has been involved in various scandals throughout her career; see this" is better than nothing at all. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're already editorializing here ... who says "many politicians" are involved in scandals throughout their careers?  What is your source for that?  Can you point to a study that compares HRC's "scandal count" against those of the average politician?  It sounds like an attempt at pro-HRC spin, to downplay the significance of any controversies before the reader has even seen them.  Better just to link to the subarticle, without trying to summarize it.  Wasted Time R 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, it sounded to me like an attempt to be neutral by adding that.  DMZ didn't compare her "scandal count" to anyone's, DMZ merely said that many politicians are involved in scandals.  I wish that were not the case, but it is.  Tvoz | talk 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the 100 current Senators, how many have been involved in "scandals"?  I believe the number is lower than you think, because there is a natural perceptual bias here — you notice it when you hear politician X is in a scandal, but you never hear about politician Y's scandal-free career.   Wasted Time R 04:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe DMZ said "politicians" not "senators".  Unfortunately, I think it is a true statement that many politicians have been involved in scandals.  Tvoz | talk 08:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't have a problem with what you're suggesting - as I said, to me it is an attempt to be neutral, rather than implying that Hillary Clinton is somehow unusual in having controversies/scandals/etc attached to her name, as I think the article does.  Tvoz | talk 22:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I added something similar to what I suggested.  I am more concerned that there be something to introduce the links than with keeping my chosen wording.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked both, but I think they are fine, and an improvement to the article. Tvoz | talk 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I guess I'm guilty of overanalyzing this.  I don't have any real objections to the language the two of you have added.  In practice, it's the sort of text that readers' eyes will quickly skip through on their way to clicking the link, so it doesn't really matter a lot what's there.  Wasted Time R 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards/controversies again 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support -  3:55pm, February 7, 2007
====Survey - in opposition to the move====
#Oppose.  As discussed above, most of her published works go by HRC, her Senate page goes by HRC, and her signature on her Senate page is HRC.  If she goes by HC when she becomes President, then yes it should change.  Until then I most commonly know her by HRC from her days as First Lady and I haven't seen anything from her which says, "I prefer to go by HC". --StuffOfInterest 12:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Oppose.  As discussed above, most of her published works go by HRC, her Senate page goes by HRC, and her signature on her Senate page is HRC.  If she goes by HC when she becomes President, then yes it should change.  Until then I most commonly know her by HRC from her days as First Lady and I haven't seen anything from her which says, "I prefer to go by HC". --StuffOfInterest 12:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: - a site showing a signature with 'Diane'
These sites also use it as a full name:
These sites use it w/out Rodham - Just Hillary Diane Clinton
[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1650140/posts]
It seems only logical to list it as her full name.  I am changing it now that I have provided proof.  If anyone has a problem - comment, please.   [00:55, 12 February 2007 User:K157 ]
:The signature goes towards our position, not yours - a book buyer asked her to sign that way, because otherwise she never does!  The three HDC references are all worthless - a political rant site and two primary schools.  That leaves three references for HDRC - the first doesn't seem to use it, while the second two do.  A google test shows all of 549 uses of HDRC, while there are 121,000 of HRC.  So in sum, she doesn't use HDRC and practically no one else does either.  We will change it back to how it belongs.   Wasted Time R 05:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  K157 - "Proof" is not the same thing as consensus; your "proof" is weak and you don't have consensus for the change.  Wasted is correct, and I support having the name as we have it: Hillary Rodham Clinton, with the correct listing of her birth name as Hillary Diane Rodham.  So please do not change it back again, unless you gain consensus here first. Tvoz | talk 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wasted Time R and Tvoz have said it well.  I agree with them.  Please stop putting this in.  You should attain consensus before making a contentious edit.  Consensus is not, "here is my evidence and I'm making the change now." --StuffOfInterest 11:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A quick skim of senator and other biography pages shows that the infobox title is usually the common name and rarely contains middle names. For people who have changed their names, the name change is normally shown in the first paragraph.  The current wording appears to be consistent with similar pages. Avt tor 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hillary DIANE Rodham Clinton

message: The citation for Hillary's support of Goldwater can be found on page 266 of 'A Glorious Disaster' by J. William Middendorf.Hillary was a high school senior at the time and a 'Goldwater Girl', Middendorf writes. [01:51, 15 February 2007 65.94.87.69]
:I've added this.   Wasted Time R 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goldwater citation

message: What's the deal with Hillary's page?  This is ridiculous...how can we get this fixed?  [00:50, 16 February 2007 140.247.154.71]
:It's already semi-protected.  If she gets the nomination, experience indicates that the whole article will be locked down during the final stretches of the general election.   Wasted Time R 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: Should we add that voters in Rhode Island wrote her in in 2004? - User:K157 [14:44, 17 February 2007]
:This was already discussed here, see Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_4#Trivia.  Why on earth is this smattering of write-in votes significant?  Even in a small state, 52 votes in a primary isn't much.  Wasted Time R 15:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 Write-in Presidetial Canidate

message: I could not find any information in the article about the polls that would show support for the candidates fighting for the Democratic nomination. Who is the front runner and what are their chances. I think a poll or two should be incorporated into the article. Ecostaz 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several of these in the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article, which is a "sub-article" of this one.  That's probably where they belong, as ten years from now they won't have a whole lot of individual meaning.  Wasted Time R 21:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls for the 2008 Presidential bid 

message: Hi, I'm not big on the scene here, so I'll keep it short and probably never return. 
Could her platform please be listed? I consider a platform to be a list of issues and her stance on them. Issues are, well, anything really. Broad things like the US budget and Foreign policy. Down to specifics like gay unions and adult stem cell harvesting.
I guess I'm lazy, but this article is too long to try and determine this stuff.  I want the political views section expanded. I get that she's libral, but what does that mean for gay arabs who pirate mp3s. 64.238.49.65 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton. There's a link in the article to this. Gdo01 22:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite.  As they say in the computer biz, RTFM.   Wasted Time R 22:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platform? 

message: Some believe that, because Hillary is married to a former president who served 2 terms, the Constitution prevents HRC from becoming president.    [22:56, 24 February 2007 65.96.76.23]
:This blog entry: h t t p : //financehistoryandpolicy at blogspot dot com/2007/01/why-hillary-rodham-clinton-cannot-be.html [chopped to placate WP spam filter] seems to elucidate this theory.  However, I believe it has so little following that it does not merit inclusion in the HRC articles.   Wasted Time R 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if that isn't amusing enough, there's this article: http://newsblaze.com/story/20060217071841nnnn.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html, which claims she cannot become President because the Constitution limits that particular office to men.  Maybe we need to start the subarticle Crackpot theories about Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Presidency.   Wasted Time R 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to further bash this flawed interpretation, the first article of the Constitution says the Representatives in the House of Representatives should be men but I don't see anyone trying to stand up for that line of the Constitution. Just noticed that there's a similar provision in the Senator requirements yet I don't see any wide spread support for removing all the women out of the Senate. This is ridiculous and kind of sad that this is the Congress with the most women in history and then there's blogs like those. Expect this article and talk page to get swamped with crackpot theories once 2008 comes around. Gdo01 06:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fellas, please tell me you didn't seriously entertain the possibility of including this garbage.Tvoz | talk 07:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not, but there's going to be a lot more people trying to put this stuff in as the months go by. Gdo01 07:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, of course, and we'll have to watch for it. (How low will they go? Oh, take a look at Barack Obama move history and you'll see how low.)  Actually I was more worried about Wasted than you anyway... Tvoz | talk 15:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me!? Whadda' I do? My subarticle suggestion above was a j-o-k-e ... Wasted Time R 23:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saw this- Wasted, I know it was a joke - that's why I put in the subtle three dots at the end...  Tvoz | talk 03:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutionality of 2008 Presidential Candidacy 

message: More commonly used, even her campaign website is hillaryclinton.com and I think it's safe to say her campaign won't say Hillary Rodham-Clinton for president. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 09:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had a full discussion and poll on this; see #Requested move above.  It's not happening.  And the name has no hyphens.  Wasted Time R 12:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Hyphen was meant to be part of an arrow pointing to the second name. --67.68.154.79 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Wasted is referring to Yonatanh's note directly above his. Tvoz | talk 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillary Rodham Clinton -> Hillary Clinton 

message: However, my above comments obviously beggar the question, what about the current Marital relationship section, which is also out of chronological sequence?  Many editors have found this section unsatisfactory, for a variety of reasons.  It used to be earlier in the article, in semi-chrono place, but even within the section it jumps around in time.  
I propose to junk the section, and distribute one part of it to a discussion of the 1992 campaign (which was a crucible for HRC and deserves more attention; it will also include "two for the price of one"/"co-presidents" from the First Lady of the US section as well as brief links to the Controversies article on Tammy Wynette/baking cookies); one part of it to the First Lady of the US section, discussing Monicagate and impeachment; and the final part to the Senator section, mentioning the heart surgery bit.
However I won't make these changes until I get feedback here on whether it is advisable.   Wasted Time R 13:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea, although we should be careful not to put excessive weight on the marriage issue in the First Lady and Senator sections. — Kelw (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now done this.  To avoid the 'excessive weight', I moved some of the material to a new entry in the Controversies article.  Wasted Time R 14:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributing out the 'Martial relationship' section

message: For a fairly controversial public figure, this whole article is reading like a giddy fan's mawkish tribute. Whitewater and Cattle Futures are both brushed aside while honors are up-played. And, until today, there was apparently errant information on HRC being valedictorian of her college class - a piece of blatanlty false propoganda that led Newsweek to mock the credibility of Wikipedia.
This article is biased for its inclusions as much as its absenses, and reads like it is being manipulated by HRC's supporters, friends, staffers or other folks of the like. I'm going to try to go in and start cleaning some of this up, but I wanted to post here first so I don't end up in the middle of some politically-charged revert war. The bottom line is this needs to be an encylcopedia article, not a fundraising letter, and at the moment it looks for more like the latter than the former. Editor Emeritus 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. There are many mentions of the controversies, including Whitewater and the cattle futures. On the whole I find the balance of achievements and criticisms to be satisfactory. The weakness of the article are bad prose and undue weight on specific quotations and events. For example, the quote on her supposed support for income redistribution was actually a very minor matter that is mostly covered on conservative blogs, but is given a full coverage in the article. Also, more credible sources are needed. But overall, I don't think the article is too biased, at least not to the extent you are saying. — Kelw (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Input noted and appreciated. What are your thoughts (and those of others) on the absense of a Tammy Wynette reference? This was a major issue at the time and centered around HRC - seems odd to exclude it. I'm also struck that a word search for "impeach" in the article only turns up a lone Nixon reference - to discuss HRC and ignore impeachment would be to discuss Melinda Gates and ignore Microsoft. Editor Emeritus 16:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and give the article what you think it needs. I only disagree with the point about the article having serious objectivity issues. — Kelw (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the Clinton impeachment, HRC didn't have much to do with that, so that's why it doesn't get much coverage here.  Wasted Time R 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Editor Emeritus, have you read Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, which is linked to from multiple places in this article?   Wasted Time R 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are some serious objectivity issues here 

message: "At the time [the 1996 re-election campaign], the remark led opponents to refer derisively to the Clintons as 'co-presidents' or sometimes 'Billary'"
This is incorrect.  "Billary" has no recorded use before the celeb couble portmanteau became popular, beginning with "Benifer", well into the George W.'s presidency.  The  source cited is dated from 2005.  So please remove the "Billary" reference as something that opponents used to deride the Clintons during Bill's presidency.   [16:42, 2 March 2007 24.199.113.105]
:The term was used at least as far back as 2000:
:* 2000 Usage of Billary
:LessPaul 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The OP is wrong; the "Billary" term was used at the time, which the cite confirms.  Just because the cite was written in 2005 is irrelevant.  Wasted Time R 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Billary" 

message: New information is opening up on her Senior Thesis at Wellesley.  See Reading Hillary Rodham's hidden thesis, MSNBC, accessed March 3, 2007.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  18:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got it covered.  A brief mention in Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Early_life_and_education and a fuller treatment in Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies#Wellesley_thesis_and_suppression, both mostly sourced from this valuable MSNBC article.  Glad this thesis has finally come to light!   Wasted Time R 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thesis

message: Right now the links to the subarticles, namely Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors and List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton, seem to occupy their own sections with very brief (if any) summaries that serve little purpose. How about putting them all under a standard See also section? The most important information from these pages should already be integrated with the text anyway, and doing this would also help achieve the chronological treatment of Clinton's biography. Any thoughts? — Kelw (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you describe is how the Mariah Carey article (which involved more editing conflict than HRC's!) was organized for a while - the links to her discography, awards, etc. subarticles were all under a 'See also' section and no where else.  But lots of people couldn't find them that way either, and now the article seems to have reverted back to the usual way.  Seems no matter what you do, some people only read the main article and nothing else, and then loudly complain that topic <whatever> is only barely covered.  Wasted Time R 23:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to subarticles

message: This article says that her father Hugh Ellsworth Rodham was English, while the Hugh Ellsworth Rodham article says he was Welsh.  Which is it? --Saforrest 14:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 4 of Living History says he came from a "line of black-haired Welsh coal miners" on his mother's side.  She's got a lengthy writeup of her various grandparents and their backgrounds, which seemed to include various different national heritages; you'd have to chart all that down if you want her breakdown.   Wasted Time R 20:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father was English or Welsh?