Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 8

message: The following comments need to be addressed/debated before the article goes to FAC:
* MAJOR: Lead section talk about the 'polarization' of opinion amongst people about Hillary Clinton
:::Now added back to intro, with new 'Cultural and political image' section to back it up.  Wasted Time R 02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it was a common practice of the area or not, I would say that it's important to her life whether her parents encouraged her or not. I don't see how it matters whether it was common or not, it should still be left in.--71.65.202.41 18:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd remove the booing unless we can find reliable  sources that actually explain it. Otherwise it is unclear or speculative. Tvoz |talk 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found an additional good source (the Gerth & Van Natta book) for the booing and why it happened, and have expanded the footnote on this accordingly.  Wasted Time R 03:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen the book, but is this their speculation about what might have been the reason for the booing or did they provide some kind of evidence like interviews with booers?  I've been looking for contemporaneous news reports with explanations, but haven't yet come up with any - I'd like to supplement the footnote with that.  Unless Gerth & Van Natta have more than just their own theory, that is.  Tvoz |talk 03:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They give this as the source for Hillary's comment on it, but no source for their causes.  I was watching the concert on TV at the time, and I would say it was half G-VN's reasons, half just plain visceral dislike of her.  Wasted Time R 03:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, so was I - and I pretty much agree - but if we're including this incident at all (and I'm not really sure why we are), I wish we had something more than speculation. It's not  a big deal though. Tvoz |talk 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gave this some more thought and reading it again the booing incident stuck out  to me as being without context - I've added some material to the 2000senate campaign about endorsements, which ties into the subsequent comments about police & firefighters.   Also added some additional refs and cleaned up a bunch of other refs for cite style. Tvoz |talk 07:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from GA review for FAC 

message: Is this article good enough to be nominated? Very well sourced, well written and with the controversy page merged. This, and the Obama article, are the best current political candidate articles that I have seen on Wikipedia. Turtlescrubber 04:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on the  format Tvoz |talk 23:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've now added the 'polarizing' section I've had in mind; it's called 'Cultural and political image', similar to Barack_Obama#Cultural_and_political_image but with a bit of Public perception of George W. Bush in it as well.  Wasted Time R 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA Class

message: I'm sure that this had be discussed before, but could someone tell me why the article's title isn't Hillary Clinton as she is widely known in the media? CG 20:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_5#Requested_move.  Wasted Time R 20:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to make your case to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), not here.  But I don't like first name usage like you suggest; it's just too informal.  It certainly would make the writing easier, and I think for that reason both of the two big 2007 biographies of her (Bernstein and Gerth-Van Natta) refer to her as "Hillary" throughout.  Regarding Collins, she writes on the op-ed pages where the standards are different.  Regarding Beyoncé, she's a harder case because she uses Knowles in some contexts, such as acting.   Wasted Time R 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The article already does call her by "Hillary Rodham Clinton", "Hillary Rodham", "Rodham", "Hillary Clinton", "Clinton", "the First Lady", and "Senator Clinton".  That seems like enough alternation of monikers.  Adding "Hillary" into the brew still seems inappropriate to me.  Wasted Time R 02:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Some other article titles on female politicians who incorporate their original last name: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Carol Moseley Braun, Margaret Chase Smith, Christine Todd Whitman  .  There are more; look at Women in the United States Senate.  Wasted Time R 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Why isn't there a "Controversies" section in the Hillary Clinton article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.234.198 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the editors believe that such a section — or separate article, as it would have to be given length considerations — is a violation of the WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism guidelines.  Instead, all controversial material is integrated into the Hillary Clinton article and subarticles in their normal places.  Thus, the Arkansas years and First Lady sections of this article have discussions of her role in Whitewater, the article on the 2000 Senate campaign describes the Suha Arafat episode, and so forth.  Wasted Time R 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the same rules apply for the articles of Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney and the dozens of other articles of Republican/conservativei politicians on Wikipedia? Am I the only one who finds it quite hilarious that the main articles of the four highest-polling Republican candidates for the 2008 presidency all have their special "controversies"-section, while on the other hand the articles of the four highest-polling Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson) all lack one. A coincidence? I think that this is a very serious problem for Wikipedia's credibility that really need to be addressed. /Slarre 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the articles should take a consistent approach, but consistency across articles is not one of Wikipedia's strong points.  I will be happy to support any move to dismantle the G/T/M/R controversies pages/sections you mention, and distribute them into the mainline biographical portions of their articles and subarticles, as one done for Hillary.  However, it would really help if Jimbo or some other higher power would explicitly rule on how this particular aspect of politician/candidates articles should be handled, so that we can all get on the same page, no pun intended.  And you're right, it's quite unfortunate the the current divided approach happens to split along party lines.  I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether this is coincidental or not.   Wasted Time R 00:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of it is also a difference in opinions on controversy sections between the editors on the Republican articles and those on the Democratic articles.  When Fred Thompson controversies came up for deletion, one of the most vocal proponents for keeping the article rather than merging it into the main article is a supporter of Thompson's while some of those accused of being in the "liberal cabal" were advocating for it to be deleted and merged into the main article.  All in all, I'm in complete agreement with Wasted Time R, I'm more than willing to support any move to dismantle the controversy sections/articles on the Republican articles. Well, if I'm active.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 01:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is a good point that Bobblehead makes.  In the earlier days of the Hillary article, User:LukeTH, who was a passionate pro-Hillary advocate and added lots of proish Hillary material to the article, was adamant that there be a separate controversies section (and later page).  He seemed to feel that this left the mainline "objective" history narrative unsullied by negative material, and that people would more likely disregard a "controversies" section as subjective material created by opponents.  So it's not at all clear which way benefits article subjects.  Wasted Time R 01:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton Article 

message: the levin and byrd amendments are important to help ascertain what her vote was for. stop deleting them or putting them at the bottom. Pkmilitia 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't delete them, I moved them to a footnote based on the ongoing FAC comment that the 'First term' section was hard to read.  It's okay with me that you've moved them back into the main text, but I've put them in parentheses to help the readibility and fixed up the citing.  Your charge that I'm "sanitizing" anything is ridiculous:  I personally have no issue with her Iraq War Resolution vote and don't care about the Levin and Byrd amendments one way or the other.  Wasted Time R 01:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Due to length constraints, her senate career was treated per WP:SUMMARY.  The material about the amendments is now in Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, just as it was before, same wording and same citations.  This article is pointed to from the top of the Senate section in the main article.  Votes on amendments that take place before a final vote is cast on a bill or a resolution are the kind of drill-down detail that will typically be located in daughter articles, rather than the parent article, and that is what has been done here.  Wasted Time R 10:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sigh.  This is what I hate about WP:SUMMARY ... no one's ever happy having their brilliant bit out of the main article and only in the daughter article.  The problem isn't length, it's importance.  In all the debate over Hillary's vote on the war, I rarely hear anyone talking about these amendments.  Why is that?  Because in the end, they don't matter.  What matters is the final vote she cast on the final resolution.  That's the one that counted, and that for better or for worse she voted for.  What evidence do you have that anyone besides you and the one article you cite, thinks these amendments are of critical importance?  Wasted Time R 01:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: stop sanitizing her iraq war vote

message: Given the way the FAC comments are going, is it time to spin the Senate material off into a separate article, and replace it with a summary section?  This is the only way I can see to significantly reduce the article size and number of references right now.  The Senate section does seem visually long compared to the others.  Precedents for doing this, even for non-presidents, include Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani and Governorship of Mitt Romney.  But what to call it?  I don't know what the equivalent term to these is for a Senator.  Wasted Time R 18:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think we should split this at this time - as you said, that may come to be necessary, but for now this is a major portion of her bio that I think should remain here. Size guidelines don't have to be followed so strictly. As for the references, well, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Again, I don't think we're over-referenced - this one has more than Obama, but she has had a public career for many more years than he has, so that stands to reason.  I haven't looked at Reagan.  I'll give this one some more thought. Tvoz |talk 21:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Senate section or the equally lengthy First Lady section are both candidates for spinning off.--Bobblehead (rants) 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to split out Senate into separate article?

message: Anyone have a better photo of her? 7F 23:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Wasted Time R 00:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Better photo?

message: ==Featured Article Task Force==
This is a result of the suggestions to make this article an FA in its present form.
Let's work to make this an FA.  I propose this schedule.
Task 1: Agree on the sections to be written. (October)
Task 2: Nominate two similar articles that are either FA or good enough to be FA's to be a model. (October)
Task 3: Rewrite or evaluate every section starting with the first and moving to the second only after the first is done.  Pay close attention to citations.
Task 4: Review pictures after the section is stable.  Pictures should support the article, not vice versa.
Task 5: Review other articles/bio on her and see if we left out anything.
Task 6: (maybe) Consider what the article will be like in 2027 and compare it with what we have.
Task 7: Discuss product with those that made FA comments and see if we addressed their concerns.  Then submit for FA and pass with flying colors.
If you oppose this task force, state your name please. 7F 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sock of User:Dereks1x almost certainly.  Blocking as such. · jersyko talk 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Me and Tvoz as socks of one another . . . gee, where have I heard that one before????  Blocked. · jersyko talk 21:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it always amuses me when a new Dereks1x sock comes around.. I think the reference of "you and Tvoz are socks" was aimed at Wasted R and Tvoz, rather than Jersyko and Tvoz. But it's always good to see that our circle of socks (according to Dereks1x at least) is growing. Welcome to the group, Wasted R! Your decoder ring is in the mail. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tvoz gave her real name to the Washington Post. I don't think usually sockpuppets do that. Perhaps the Pattern Recognition Detector needs to be turned down a tad? --Pleasantville 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case Pleasantville's comment was aimed at my comment. Sorry, should have been clearer, I don't suspect that Tvoz and Wasted R are socks of each other. I was more responding to Jersyko's comment. Dereks1x's socks have accused myself, Jersyko, and Tvoz of being socks of each other multiple times. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope,  I think Pleasantville was aiming correctly at 7F - and thanks, P. But logic is usually wasted on Dereks1x and his farm. Bobblehead, I say the more the merrier in our secret oneness. This is so obviously predictable. Tvoz |talk 22:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing wrong with improvement, but there is something wrong with block evasion and in cases of block evasion, WP:BAN advocates enforcement by removal of their comments regardless of merit.--Bobblehead (rants) 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is stricken again - as  you know, UTAFA, 7F was blocked because it is a sock account of Dereks1x. Tvoz |talk 23:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UTAFA was previously suspected to be a Dereks1x, and his recent edits have removed all doubt.  Blocked as well. · jersyko talk 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I too would rather be talking about the article than dealing with another sockpuppet of a banned user whose goal seems to  be just to disrupt and prevent us from doing what we're here for - but surely you see that we can't ignore it?   About the substance of your comment - I think you have a point that some citations would be good in that paragraph. Thank you for raising it - we'll check to see where it came from and try to get some in there.  Tvoz |talk 04:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked back, and found that we had references for that graf originally, but they fell off somewhere down the road - haven't bothered to find out why, but I've reinstated them. Thank you for pointing it out. Tvoz |talk 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tvoz.  Don't know how those got lost.  I've expanded a bit more on the restoration/redecorations and added a couple of book cites.  Wasted Time R 11:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MD12752 was also blocked as a Dereks1x sock - the third one uncovered yesterday. Tvoz |talk 02:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sock disruptions

message: The Arkansas Project needs to be mentioned in the "Lewinsky scandal" in the context of Clinton referring to "a long, organized, collaborative series of charges by Clinton political enemies." Since a 6+ year effort to attack Clinton was organized, this needs to be referenced to the context of what was going on. NNtw22 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't just the Arkansas Project, the VRWC included various others as well.  But you're right that it needed some explication; I've added a footnote covering this.  Wasted Time R 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arkansas Project 

message: FAC continuing discussion
Responses to prior comments now archived:
*I still intend to give some help on necessary edits, undue weight concerns, and unobjectionable style edits.
*Perhaps both Ron Paul and Clinton should have stronger in-line comments in lead as to not editing it frivolously without understanding the issues and compromises, and referring editors elsewhere. That would greatly help stability.
**In my experience, such comments don't get read/followed by troublesome editors, but who knows.  Wasted Time R 00:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC continuing discussion