Talk:Hillary Clinton

Information does not make sense:

"Hillary Clinton made culturally dismissive remarks about Tammy Wynette and baking cookies and having teas during the campaign that were ill-considered by her own admission."

I'm new here, and although I think it would probably be common sense to delete it, I figured I'd ask permission first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logabob (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't even think about deleting it, these are two of the most (in)famous remarks she's ever made ... there are lengthy footnotes for both of them, that explain them in more detail. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time: Logabob is right,I think. Also, the entire first paragraph in that section has nothing at all to do with when she was First Lady. All of that should go in a different section if it belongs in the article at all. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the non-First Lady stuff that took place before she became First Lady. If it's thought to be relevant it should certainly go in another section. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the wording a bit on the Tammy Wynette and baking cookies/having teas mentions, because they were perhaps a bit mysterious. Again, the footnotes give the full story on them. They were quite notable during the campaign. The idea that these remarks, and the Gennifer Flowers scandal, should just be removed from the article completely is ludicrous. They were crucial in first defining Hillary Clinton to the American public, and are covered in all biographies of Hillary, including her own autobiography. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a "1992 presidential campaign" section to include the above material, separate from "Role as First Lady". (They used to be together because the campaign incidents foretold many of the difficulties she would have as First Lady. But I can see the rationale for splitting them.) I still have "1992 presidential campaign" underneath the top-level "First Lady of the United States", even though obviously it precedes that; this is an artifice that is used in many political articles, to avoid having too many shortish top-level sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And whatever the questions here, mass deletion of historically important material is not the answer. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I've moved "1992 presidential campaign" out of the FL US section and into the preceding Arkansas section. It avoids the above artifice, and has some advantages with respect to how the images are used. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. That's a big improvement overall,istm. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no thanks to you. What you did, deleting a big swath of material just because you don't think it's included in the right section, is how articles get wrecked. If no one has the article on their watchlist, the bad edit never gets seen, and the material gets lost. I've seen that it's happened in other articles, when I trace through the past history. You continue to be a disruptive editor who makes no useful contribution to this project. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Face facts: the material was not in the right section as you yourself have confirmed by putting it somewhere else. If the article managers/controllers were doing a good job in the first place, then less actives like Logabob wouldn't need to state the obvious and then wouldn't have their concerns summarily ignored/dismissed thus requiring people like me to do something. If I had not done anything then the article would not have been improved. Rather than stalk my individual edits, I encourage you to take seriously the concerns brought up, especially by the less obsessed editors, and then I won't have to step in to help get their quite legitimate concerns taken seriously. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of wrecking this article, you make no sense at all because you yourself have chosen to continue to leave out of this article the exact same "big swath of material" which you criticize me for deleting. Obviously this article is better without that chunk of material so my deletion did,in fact,improve this article. I have similar feelings towards you in the sense that I feel that obsessive article controllers/watchers are the single most disruptive influence on this encyclopedia because of the vast numbers of would be editors who are discouraged from participating in the project. Although the article might be passable it will never achieve the level of readability, succinctness and comprehensiveness that it could if there were more editors making less edits each. Having said that, I know you have good intentions and do not mean to be disruptive, therefore, I had no plans to mention my opinion in this regard...but, since you call me by that name, I'll just say that the feeling is mutual. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Your last remark I do not understand — I have not left the same material out, indeed I restored it. Specifically, you with this edit deleted all the material on the 1992 campaign. This is what I am criticizing you for. Regardless of which section it belonged in, it needs to be in the article. I with this sequence of edits restored the 1992 campaign material, but into a different section. If you had merely discussed your concern with what section it belonged in, I would have no quarrel with you. But your deleting of all of it was completely without merit. And your bringing User:Logabob into it is a red herring, because he or she was only concerned about one small phrase in the 1992 campaign material, not the whole thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My rejection of User:Logabob's proposal to delete "baking cookies and having teas" was because that step was completely unwarranted and it was clear that user had not bothered to read the footnotes about it. That said, upon looking at it again, I realized that to someone who wasn't already familiar with these remarks, the wording was so terse as to be a bit mysterious. Thus I have expanded the main text wording to hopefully make that better. Yes, I should have seen this the first time around and made the change then, at the time I responded to Logabob. My bad for not doing so. But this again does not warrant you deleting all of the campaign material, including Gennifer Flowers, 60 Minutes, conservative attacks, and so on. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no desire to continue these quarrels with you. But it is often hard to believe you are genuinely interested in article issues; you just seem to latch onto whatever complaints or comments other editors have. For instance, in the past you wanted to amplify the coverage of the Lewinsky scandal here, including renaming it and adding explicit "Bill and Monica cigar" descriptions. Yet now, you want to remove all mention of Gennifer Flowers from the article. How do we reconcile these positions? Wasted Time R (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a good question,WastedTime. It's only my opinion, but I think the cigar event was so extreme,perverse(to many),and,yes,humorous(to many), as well as being quite peculiar to the Clinton/Lewinsky liason (what other famous person in history has been caught doing this particular thing?), that it became/is historical and encyclopedic and will be recounted long into the future just as Catherine the Great's beastiality with [1]horses. More importantly, it is an event documented by an official U.S. government inquiry and reported by many Reliable Sources. On the other hand, what Hillary said about the Gennifer Flowers event was just a simple and shallow deflection/reaction which does not seem to me to be encyclopedic at all.Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's your right to have that opinion, but Hillary's biographers don't share it. For example, Gil Troy's bio of her gives 24 pages to the 1992 campaign, including 4 pages to the 60 Minutes joint interview regarding the Gennifer Flowers sex scandal. He comments on the irony of Hillary having to play loyal wife rather than extoll her own accomplishments, and says the joint appearance is crediting with rescuing Bill's campaign. He doesn't mention the cigar business at all in the Lewinsky scandal part of the bio, as far as I can tell. The Gerth/Van Natta Jr. bio of her gives 25 pages to the 1992 campaign, including 3 pages to the 60 Minutes/Flowers episode. They say the interview defused the scandal, but Hillary created a "firestorm" with her Tammy Wynette remarks at the same time. They don't mention the cigar business at all either, from what I could see. The Joyce Milton bio gives 4 pages to the 60 Minutes/Flowers episode, and says that Hillary was more poised than Bill during it. So I think the importance of Hillary's role in these 1992 campaign events is pretty well established by how her biographers treat it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I actually think that the cigar business and the other explicit descriptions given of the Bill-Monica relationship do merit coverage in Wikipedia. It was a unique aspect of this scandal that all this explicitness came out over mainstream news venues and in government documents; many commentators talked about how the Starr Report approached soft porn. But the inclusion should be in the Lewinsky scandal or Starr Report articles, not here, for the obvious reason that those are the articles that directly cover the Bill-Monica goings on. Hillary wasn't a party to these activities. What goes in this article is how Hillary reacted to the Lewinsky scandal, the Flowers episode, and so forth. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What I find most interesting about the inclusion of this "Baking Cookies/Tammy Wynette" information is the timing. Per Wikipedia Guidelines, I definitely want to assume "Good Faith." But, I'm a little unclear on what would constitute "Good Faith" here. The Tammy Wynette comment was made over, what, 15 years ago? So, why is it all of the sudden a subject of MASS importance of some to have included in HRC's biographical page? I guess that all these "Good Faith" edits adding any and every questionable thing Bill or Hillary Clinton has ever said or done are just "Good Faith" attempts at making their articles as complete as possible. And, since everything is done "in good faith" they couldn't possible have anything to do with any heated primary election that has renewed a great interest in 15 year old comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Ways (talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been in the article all along — see this version from March 2007 for example. Very recently, one editor didn't understand the wording, another editor unjustifiably took it out completely, and I restored it with some better wording. Has absolutely nothing to do with current politics at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll confirm that. And the Tammy Wynette/baking cookies comments are certainly appropriate here - indeed it would be very odd for it not to be in this biography - those comments are emblematic of her relationship with critics at that time. And it's not necessarily the case that they accrue poorly to her - Tammy's feelings may have been hurt, but Hillary was making an important point about herself. The cigar story has nothing whatever to do with Hillary, and couldn't be more inappropriate for her biography. Adding it is the edit that ought to be scrutinized for motivation, not Tammy. Tvoz |talk 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WastedTime agrees with me that the cigar story merits coverage on Wikipedia. The reasons I think it belongs here are A: because the Lewinsky Scandal section is here, and B: Hillary's passive/defensive acceptance of Bill's sexual behavior, over decades, fits the classic definition of "co-dependent"; with the widely publicized cigar incident showing the extent of the behavior she,herself, is/was willing to accept. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As has been said repeatedly, the Lewinsky scandal section here only deals with it as it pertains to HRC, not all aspects, so reason A is bogus. And it's great that you have theory B, but I haven't seen any of her biographers share it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the "baking cookies" remark got a new lease on life when Obama brought it up at the debate the other night (pointing to the continuing irony that many of the charges against him in '08 are similar to charges made against the Clintons in '92). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Feature this article

I think this article should be featured. Anyone agree? QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Every amoeba is more fantastic and perfect than this or any article. Should each of them be featured on a list? Just concentrate on getting something done rather than patting anybody's back. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think this article should be a featured article on the main page. It's not about patting backs - it's about showing good articles on the main page. That also helps bring massive amounts of edits quickly improving articles ... so lets add it! Munchmuchmunch? (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I never read the main page cause it's boring. I'd like to see how much time people spend on the main page. Lots of people already try to edit this article but the new edits are quickly buried in controller(s) quicksand, e.g.[2], so there's no point at all in frustrating more attempted editors. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That edit was backed out because the matter in question was already included in the article. In talk page conversation I told the editor where it was, and the editor was satisified. See here, here and here. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Attracted National Attention in 1969?

What do you mean, she "...attracted national attention in 1969 when she delivered an address as the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College..."

She did? Well where is the proof? Hmm, I was a teenager in 1969 and I sure don't remember this 'national attention'; do you?

Cite the 1969 media sources, please, to prove that this was 'national attention'. Rather than just something picked up by the local Massachusetts media.

And "first student to speak at commencement" at Wellesley? I mean, come on, commencement is all about students! Of course students would have been allowed to speak at a commencement ceremony! This doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do remember it - I was in college in New York City in 1969 and I remember the flak about a Wellesley student dissing Brooke at graduation. But then Life magazine was big in my house. Tvoz |talk 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, please - you're insulting the intelligence of others following these threads in silence... Oxfordden (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Oxfordden, for insinuating that I am not telling the truth. As a matter of fact I do remember reading about a Wellesley student who spoke at graduation and was critical of Brooke who was also speaking at the exercises. It was talked about - it was a female student (of course it was at an all-women college or else she wouldn't likely have been giving a speech at all - yes, that's how it was in 1969), he was the only black Senator, albeit a Republican., and she was criticizing him in his presence. I was extremely politically aware in 1969, I was a woman in college (co-ed), and in those days, this was newsworthy stuff. I may have read about it in Life magazine which in fact my parents were charter subscribers to and it was always in the house or I may have read it elsewhere or saw a story on tv news. I don't remember which. And of course I don't recall the specifics that the woman's name was Hillary Rodham, nor did I say that I did. But I remember the incident. You can say that I'm insulting your intelligence, but in fact you're insulting me. So believe what you want - I don't really care. Tvoz |talk 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is how the body of the article explains it:

Stemming from the demands of some students,[27] she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address.[25] Her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes.[22][28][29] She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement;[8] she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.[30]

The style of the article is that footnotes aren't used in the lead section, as the lead just summarizes material present in the body of the article, and the footnotes are all there in the body (as you can see). As for national atttention, Life magazine was definitely national and very widely read and influential at the time. The Irv Kupcinet show was not as well known across the nation, but was syndicated to up to 70 stations, so she gained additional national exposure from it as well. As for "first student to speak", as the article body makes clear, she was the first to deliver the commencement address; you are likely right that other students probably made introductory remarks, presentations of class gifts, etc., before her.

But I agree the lead section language wasn't clear on the second point, so I've now changed it to: ... Hillary Rodham attracted national attention in 1969 for her remarks as the first student to deliver the commencement address at Wellesley College. Better, I hope. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also added a direct cite to the Life issue in question (June 20, 1969, article title "The Class of '69"). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Leading Candidate or Candidate?

I heard somewhere that there as a war going on about whether she should be refered to as leading candidate or just candidate. Currently it is on just candidate. Which one do you think it should be?

Non-Biased facts:

Leading: -She is in the top two -She should get her Florida and Michigan Delegates -There is talk about a re-election in Florida -She is ahead on the polls in pensylvania -She is heavily attacked, giving her publicity -It could not only be used as first place, but with power. Like in the fact she is powerful

Candidate -She isn't frontrunner -Her chances of winning are slim -"Leading" makes her look powerful -There is no way she can get her Florida and Michigan delegates -She is the weaker candidate -Shye can't raise enough money

PLEASE HELP WITH FORMATTING! [22:16, 16 April 2008 Politicalpundit]

At this point the whole 'issue' has become troll bait. No "leading". The Obama article doesn't use it either, anymore. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I took out the word Protestant from info box. In general just the word Christian is enough. This also matches Obama's and McCain's articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax returns

Are details of Hillary Clinton's tax returns really notable enough to be included in her BLP? There is certainly an argument for covering them in the campaign article, but I are they notable enough in the context of a summary of her entire life? I find this detail hard to reconcile with WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This article mentions them in context of tracing the Clintons' financial well-being, which is mentioned several times throughout the course of this biographical article. The Clintons' relatively low incomes in the 1970s were responsible for their Whitewater investment and her cattle futures trading, both of which would have unexpected outcomes. There's a quote from Bill that I'd like to include if I can verify it, that the Clintons were the poorest couple to enter the White House in over a hundred years. Subsequently, things have changed, and after leaving the White House the couple (primarily him) has made a ton of money. This is all legitimate biographical description, and it's in that context that the tax returns are mentioned. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Clinton's admission ... that her ... statements ... were mistaken ...

Under "Presidential campaign of 2008" it says : Clinton's admission in late March that her campaign statements about having been under hostile fire from snipers during a 1996 visit to U.S. troops at Tuzla Air Base in Bosnia-Herzegovina were mistaken ....

Who the hell mistook her statement ?? Wasn`t that a clear and unmistakable statement ?? Only in Wikipedia !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.70.49 (talk • contribs)

And "only in Wikipedia" could someone so misunderstand: mistaken as in I made a mistake. See the reference. Tvoz |talk 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

her ... statements ... were mistaken... By whom?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.93.144 (talk • contribs)

Did you read the above response and the title of the source article? No one said that other people mistook her comments. She said she made a mistake. That is a completely comprehensible use of the word "mistaken". Tvoz |talk 05:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about the the reference, I was talking about Wikipedias text !

Whereas the reference says "she made a mistake", Wikipedia says "her ... statements ... were mistaken" , thereby introducing the ambiguity that her statements e.g. were mistaken by the audience as being truthful , or whatever ...).

Why use an ambiguous phrase and bury the truth in a reference ??

(And be assured, I did read the reference before my first comment! But the reference is not the point, Wikipedias ambiguous text is.)

I agree with Tvoz that you're willfully misinterpreting 'were mistaken', but since we aim to please around here, I've changed it to 'were incorrect'. I've also made Paisan30's last edit to the same subject more concise; we're in danger of giving this episode undue weight at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the correction Wasted Time, it`s much more precise now. Thanks.

Hillary's eye colour is fake: she wears blue contact lenses

Ok, those aren't my harsh words, they are what I read in the following article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/19/wuspols219.xml Anyway, I searched Google because I found it a bit hard to believe. On a last ditch effort I checked this page to see if it were true or not. I'm still not sure. The source is Camille Paglia but just because it's in print doesn't mean I am going to believe it outright. Anyway, if this is true that Sen. Clinton wears color contacts, I would like to know if there is any reason she has given why (and when) she started doing so. It's trivial, I know, but I think a lot of people would be fascinated by this. Full disclosure: I do not support Sen. Clinton for president. But, unlike Ms. Paglia, I don't find this a scandalous aspect of her character or relevant other than just being an interesting factoid--if true--sort of like I find it interesting which hollywood actors are vegetarians (or else it's a possible slander-rumor to be debunked--yes, I know that's not what Wikipedia is for!--which might make an interesting note for Paglia's page if she has one). Well, anyway, if anyone has any comment, I'd like to have it. --210.172.229.198 (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a comment. "Trivial" doesn't really capture it. We're neither here to debunk nor spread rumors, and this kind of item has no place in an encyclopedia even if true, so I think we should just move on now. Take it to the attack-Hillary blogs - I'm sure you'll find a receptive audience. Tvoz |talk 05:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)