Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Hillary Clinton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Whitewash

You can smell the POV from a mile away--RCT 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of us have always wanted to adapt Smell-o-Vision to Wikipedia articles and now it looks as though we've succeeded. Hard work does pay off! Wasted Time R 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Per the GA comments, I have attempted to expand the lead section. This is fraught with peril, as everyone loves to battle over what the lead says. However, what was there clearly did not meet the WP:LS requirements. Note that I haven't put any sourcing into the lead, because everything that's there is thoroughly sourced later on in the body of the article. Wasted Time R 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too long. It says too much about Arkansas. That's better dealt with in its own section.--Gloriamarie 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See my response below. Wasted Time R 18:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Since then, Clinton had regained her lead and is winning many polls by double digits." This is at worst completely not true or at best uninformed. 1) National polls mean nothing in the perspective of the 2008 Democratic Primaries (only the state polls matter, and BO is winning in SC), 2) national polls have a huge variety on what they report. We cite a CBS Poll showing HC ahead, but a poll released by Gallup a week ago shows BO leading w/ 30% nationally, to HC's 29. Simply, it's both unfair and irrelevant to report this in the lead.--Pruiz 09:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The text you are objecting to is in the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article, not this article. You need to make your comment there. Wasted Time R 11:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First woman elected statewide

Moving to New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected to the United States Senate in 2000, becoming the first First Lady elected to public office and the first woman elected statewide in New York.

The last part of this sentence is erroneous. Elizabeth McCaughey was elected lieutenant governor of New York in 1994. [03:23, 10 June 2007 24.168.150.1]

This has since been changed. The intended meaning was, Senator or Governor, not sub-Governor statewide positions, but this was difficult to say concisely, so someone has changed it to just first Senator. Wasted Time R 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

editing needed

This article needs serious editing. There are no sources where sources are needed and there are far too many references in the early life section. Perhaps we can forgo adding links to other pages for simple things such as "New York" and "Chicago" to keep the article from being a scattered mess of blue text with interjections of black text. After all, when one clicks on "Chicago," I doubt they will find any information pertinent to the article on H. Clinton. Secondly, the second paragraph appears a bit choppy with "she" being the subject of nearly every sentence. Lastly, it has to be shortened: while I am sure many of us care that she was a college Republican, I think that a short section combining her college years and early career would suffice. Moreover, the section on her term as senator is far too long; nearly twice the length of Strom Thurmond's, and lets face it, she hasn't done all that much. If people want to know all about her, they will read one of the many biographies on her...as for this article, it needs only to contain the really, really really important information... and perhaps the really really. [01:04, 12 June 2007 Mrathel]

Please call out where sources are needed, editors here will be happy to supply them (or delete material if there are none).
Blue text is a fact of life in this medium. Better more links than less. A foreign reader, for example, may have no idea where Chicago is within the United States, and the link is therefore helpful.
I strongly disagree about shortening her early life or college or post-college sections. These were her formative years and she had a lot of accomplishments, ones that people who only view her as the wife of a successful politician may not be aware of.
I agree the section on Senator probably has a little too much here or there. The Strom Thurmond article is too short; WP:Recentism at work again.
I disagree that this article needs to be terse and that people need to head off to a biography. Wikipedia has reams of information about TV shows and video games and B-sides of singles; it can certainly afford a comprehensive account of major political figures, HRC included. Wasted Time R 01:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is quite long. I don't think that's a bad thing, but the opening is overly long. I would say that the second paragraph-- on Wellesley and her law career-- does not need to be there because the First Lady and Senator information is so much more important for an opening. It just seems very wordy. A sentence would be sufficient about her law career.. perhaps "Once named one of the hundred most influential lawyers in America, as First Lady Clinton..." and go into the First Lady paragraph. While the Wellesley information is obviously important and should be included in her early life or school section, it doesn't really belong in the opening to the entire article.--Gloriamarie 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The key here is that many people think HRC has earned nothing on her own, that everything has come from being married to BC. If the opening only talks about First Lady and Senator, that impression will get reinforced. That's why I think the college and law career material is important. It shows that she was already quite accomplished before BC became widely known. And in an article this long (and just wait, if she becomes president!), a longish lead section is not inappropriate. Wasted Time R 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that really NPOV to write the article directed at a certain subset of readers? I believe that the same impression can be given by simply including an amazing fact like "she was considered one of the 100 most influential/important lawyers in the country" and then talking about the other stuff. I still think it's too long, especially talking even about Wellesley :) --Gloriamarie 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead should also be thoroughly cited, even if the references are included elsewhere in the article. The same references can be used.--Gloriamarie 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:LS says the lead section "should be carefully sourced as appropriate". I was hoping "as appropriate" meant, source things if they don't get sourced later ;-) Wasted Time R 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh- we were just given a GA review that specifically asked that the intro be LENGTHENED, which it has been. Now we're being told it's too long. I think in balance that Wasted is correct - this subject can support a long article, as there are several significant areas to examine, and we dcon't have to worry so much about length. Tvoz |talk 22:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I just think the lengthening was taken a bit too far. It seems odd to be talking about the Wellesley speech, interesting fact as it is, in the second paragraph of the article.--Gloriamarie 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi., i am the GA reviewer for the article. Wanted to clarify a couple of things. One, i don't think that the Lead is overtly long, CONSIDERING the length of the article. Infact as stated above, i insisted that the earlier lead (as submitted for GA) about her being a former first lady and a current senator wasn't enough and asked these folks to expand to cover various aspects of her bio in the lead. If there are any sentences that you think can be removed, please suggest so.

For my part, I read the lead a few times now and the only sentences that can be cropped:

A native of Illinois, Hillary Rodham initially attracted national attention in 1969 when she became the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College.
The state of her marriage to Bill Clinton was the subject of considerable public discussion following the events of the Lewinsky scandal in 1998.
Her major initiative, the Clinton health care plan, failed to gain approval by the U.S. Congress in 1994, but she was successful in other areas, such as establishing the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997.

I am not asking that these sentences be removed, just that these might the only sentences that can be removed at max. But as i said, i like to leave the lead in the current state.

Two, with respect to the length of the article - Hillary Clinton has the potential to be one of the most visited page when the democratic race hots up and if she wins the ticket, during presidential campaign and hence the length of the article is appropriate. I am not an american and thus excuse me if i don't know who Strom Thurmond is (i shall look up his wikipage after this message).

Third, can you please comment why you don't consider the lead size of Barack Obama to be inappropriate. also, for a senator who has 2.5 years in office - he has 2 subsections and atleast 4 good paras. And BO article is FA. --Kalyan 15:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I do think the Barack Obama lead is pretty long considering most other politicians (many of them around longer) have a much shorter lead. It talks about his family and other information that is repeated later in the article. In my preference, the Lewinsky scandal should not be mentioned in the lead, either. It fits in with the paragraph and the rest of the information, though. This is not a huge thing so I don't want to make a huge deal of it. It was simply a suggestion. I don't think the article is too long, although the Senate section could be edited to not seem as if it's "she voted this, she sponsored this, etc."... to be more flowing.--Gloriamarie 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to arbitrate the length of Barack Obama here - the editors there have their reasons for constructing it the way it is, and the editors here have a different set of circumstances to negotiate. Although I was skeptical at first, I now think the long intro here is appropriate, and I think Wasted's argument above from June 13 about presenting material about her that demonstrates her independent accomplishments, is exactly correct and we should not remove the sentences referenced above - each adds an important element. Tvoz |talk 03:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule

I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule

--Robapalooza 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

do you have a link to your graph showing a trendline of the poll results as they relate to # of delegates?

Wow

Not a single mention of Hillary's vote for the Iraq War Resolution? Hillary's supporters must be working overtime to sweep that rather important but now embarrasing bit of information under the rug. Well, I'll add it and take up a pool on how long it takes a DLC/DNC operative to edit it out.--Nicky Scarfo 16:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed it. Senator section, first term subsection. "Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, ..." Wasted Time R 16:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oopsy-- just noticed it, I guess I missed it being buried in with all the wonderful things she's done. Sorry folks. --Nicky Scarfo 16:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton-related music video?

Weird question here. I was in the other room last night and overhead something on the news from the other room. They were playing some new video that had some connection to Hilary or her campaign or something about her. Anyway the song kicked ass and I want to know the title and singer of the song. I've heard it before. The name "Dream" is coming to my mind for some reason, I don't know if that's the name of the artist or has no connection to the song I'm thinking of at all but for some reason I have a feeling the word "Dream" is either the title of the band/singer or of the song itself. Some words I can remember from the song are "street lights," "somewhere in the night," and "people" if that narrows it down (which it doesn't much as nothing of note came up on google when I googled those words with the word "lyrics". Anyway, anyone know what song this is? Thanks.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Playstation7654 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like you heard Journey's classic "Don't Stop Believin'", recently of Sopranos final episode and Clintons spoof fame. This has been added to the campaign article, but doesn't merit mention here. Wasted Time R 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hillary on the Patriot Act

I'm surprised there's no mention of her voting position on the Patriot Act. In the little research I did I found that she voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and again in 2006 to renew it. I think this and perhaps some of her thoughts on the issue would be highly relevant to add to the article. --68.41.43.166 03:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've added text to this effect, although I was kind of hand-wavy about what provisions she was trying to change during the 2005/2006 debate on renewal. If you have more to add, put it here with cites and I'll try to incorporate it. Wasted Time R 13:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rodham dropped?

I heard that she isn't HRC anymore. It's Hillary Clinton. Is this true? ItSawGood 07:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Wasted Time R 10:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In need of a good guffaw?

Read the Conservapedia article on HRC. No NPOV restrictions over there to worry about! Wasted Time R 04:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Look up HIV/AIDS that article says "primarily a sexually transmitted disease that strikes down wicked sodomites and other vile reprobates, such as liberals." Or look up some creationist articles on there. Forget NPOV, there are no accuracy requirements for there. Plantocal 19:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

as of a month later, the HIV page says none of those things... and they do technically have supposed requirements...Heatherfire 23:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No ancestry on Hillary mother side?

Her father's ancestry is mentioned under the Early life and Education section. Can her mother's ancestry be added as well? Ref: Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, was a son of Welsh and English immigrants[4] and operated a small but successful business in the textile industry.[5] Her mother, Dorothy Emma Howell Rodham, was a homemaker.

I've now added this. The two good sources I've seen for Hillary's ancestry are Living History and the William Addams Reitwiesner geneaology. It seems a bit murky are the origins of Hillary's maternal grandmother Della Murray; I've covered this in a footnote. Wasted Time R 13:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Early life and education

In "Early life and education" I added to her original last name her current one. Just because back then it wasn't her name, the subject person is still Hillary Rodham Clinton and not Hillary Rodham.
If Joe Miller changes his name to Bob McGovern, one must say "Bob McGovern was born in AR as Joe Miller" and not the other way around. Stop reversing.
Northern 15:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed in the past, consult the Talk archives. The intro to the whole article refers to Hillary Rodham Clinton. The "early life" section concerns a person who was then Hillary Rodham, and needs to be referred to as such. She had many achievements before she ever took "Clinton" into her name. Wasted Time R 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasted is correct. Tvoz |talk 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Occupations of Hugh and Tony

I know that Hugh's and Tony's occupations were put into the "Early life" section as part of GA review, but I've yanked them. One, they were confusing; given the very chronological nature of the article, it made it seem like they were already in those occupations when Hillary was growing up, which of course is senseless. Two, the occupations given conflicted with the articles on Hugh and Tony! In fact, it's not straightforward to describe either of their careers: best leave that to their articles, that's what wikilinks are for. Wasted Time R 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The only reason i asked for it is because i had no idea what they were doing. If it disturbs the flow of the article, i have no objection to the removal. --Kalyan 08:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. Tvoz |talk 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I'm also in the process of improving the articles on Hugh and Tony ... am mid-way through Hugh. Wasted Time R 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up - work for now on both of these is done. Wasted Time R 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First Lady of the United States

On the third paragraph, there's a bracket missing from an image causing it to not work. 58.178.9.123 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, is now fixed. Wasted Time R 01:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Graph Removed

I removed the pie chart in the 2008 Presidential election section. For one thing, it essentially labeled candidates who were not Clinton/Obama/Edwards as "other" making it inherently biased. Second I don't think that we should use this article to speculate on the outcomes of the primaries.--Jersey Devil 07:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this - although it's interesting and well done, I too think it is problematic and doesn't belong in the main article in any case. (By the way, Jersey, I am pretty sure I've seen versions of it in other presidential campaign articles, so perhaps they shoul dbe removed too.) Tvoz |talk 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the speculative aspect, but I strongly disagree with your stated reason for removing it. The chart was generated based on the best-available poling data (see the image source). This is an accurate an unbiased representation of the available information. Silly rabbit 08:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well sr, perhaps my edit summary should have included my objections to the "speculative" issue. Tvoz, that particular pie chart is now orphaned but if there are other versions of it on other articles I agree that they should be removed.--Jersey Devil 08:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I never liked this pie chart, in any of the articles it's included in. I applaud the removal.--Gloriamarie 21:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

After Yale [bar exam failure again]

Can anyone cogently explain how a person who failed a bar exam could be appointed to teach law shortly thereafter? It is all sourced from her autobiography, but I don't understand it. -- Y not? 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_6#Failed_DC_Bar_Exam for the past discussion on this. Regarding your particular question, she passed the one in Arkansas, which is where she was teaching; the D.C. failure was irrelevant. Wasted Time R 20:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded a bit on the bar exam failure in a footnote, including that she didn't tell her friends about it for 30 years. Wasted Time R 11:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please edit

Someone changed the opening blurb so it says Hillary is the future president rather than a candidate. Please change it back.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.0.144.26 (talk • contribs)

Was done soon after. Generally there's no need to flag these kinds of obvious vandalism in Talk, as lots of admins have this page in their sights. Wasted Time R 12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New standards for wikipedia presidential hopefuls' article. Mention sex, I'm not kidding

What's this about Rudy can't get an erection? Must be some anti-Rudy folks editing. There's even a reference. How about mentioning Bill Clinton's crooked penis, which is a true statement. Seriously, we need warnings on the top of these articles or people will think all of wikipedia is wacky, not just the articles of presidential hopefuls. JonnyLate 16:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Some controversies merged in

Just a note that some of the material formerly in Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies has been merged into here, either in the mainline sections or in footnotes, as part of the dismantling of that article. See Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies#Proposal to dismantle this article for the full story. Wasted Time R 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Committee assignments

The entry states that Clinton "sits on five committees" but in fact she sits only on four (Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Senate Special Committee on Aging) according to the entry itself and Clinton's website (http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/committees/index.cfm). Mae23 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's four currently, five in her total time as Senator. I've changed the wording to clarify this. Wasted Time R 12:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

source needed for affair with barabara walters.

maybe i was asleep when that story broke but i don't think she had an affair with barabara walters. if she did please site the source or remove that comment Daud44 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It was mindless, moronic vandalism - now removed. Tvoz |talk 17:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism-- but that would be pretty exciting news.--Gloriamarie 21:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

News? Tvoz |talk 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote on Levin Amendment

Why is there no mention of Hillary's vote against the Levin Amendment to the Iraq War Resolution in the section discussing her vote on Iraq. Hillary specifically voted against this amendment which would have required President Bush to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the UN and also would have required a separate Congressional authorization to allow a unilateral invasion. Given her campaign speeches touting her vote as, "A vote for strong diplomacy," and this article's mention of the diplomatic requirements of the authorization, it seems only fair to mention her full voting record on this very important piece of legislation. (If memory serves me correct, she voted in favor of the rather toothless Byrd Amendment which gave only a one-year authorization, but which could be extended based on President Bush's assertion that the war was vital to national security). Hopefully, someone with the power to unlock this page to add this relevant information can include this. Pkmilitia 10:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

The page isn't locked, just semi-protected; registered users who have been around for more than a few days, such as yourself, can edit it. In any case, there's a fuller discussion of HRC's votes relative to the Iraq War Resolution in Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Iraq_War; you might look to edit there too. Wasted Time R 11:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. I've added the information to this article, as well as the Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Iraq_War page, and the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008#Opposition and skepticism from non-candidates page. I'll try to keep an eye on it so that her staffers won't delete it. Pkmilitia 23:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

I trimmed out the editorializing from the contribution to this article - not the place for it - and also the Arianna cite - opinion columns don't make for good sources. I wikified the campaign article contribution - you should look for wikilinks on stuff like this, Gerth and Van Natta both have their own articles here and readers may want to judge their background when assessing claims such as these. The political positions contribution looks ok. Wasted Time R 01:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I anticipated some changes, and you are definitely right about the Huffington Post article not being suitable for wikipedia. But why is it editorializing to include unfavorable mentions of contradictions between her stump speeches and voting record. Would Mitt Romney's page not include that his position on abortion has changed and has been subject to criticism? Assertions of voting for diplomacy, while at the same time voting against the Levin Amendment seem to qualify in the same way. Also, the two authors of the piece I cited are both Pulitzer prize winning authors for the New York Times, and the book "Her Way" is listed as mostly neutral on the List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton page. 69.142.52.3 02:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Do you think adding something like, "which has led to some criticism in the media of her voting record not matching her campaign stump speeches," to the second to last sentence of the paragraph in question, would still be POV? Pkmilitia 03:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

While Gerth and Van Natta, two reporters who have made their careers out of making the Clintons miserable, may think that her vote on the Levin Amendment is a key decision that undermines her explanations re the Iraq War Resolution, hardly anyone else does. Indeed the Levin Amendment isn't even discussed in the Iraq War Resolution article, as far as I can tell. And since HRC hasn't explained her reason for voting against the Levin Amendment, we can't really sustain your proposed text. If you really want to add material on this, the political positions article is the better place. The main article has to keep the narrative moving, otherwise it bogs down and gets way too long. Wasted Time R 03:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article must retain a narrative flow, and I'm not trying to write an essay about the Levin Amendment and insert it in the middle of the article, but just because most people do not know about the Levin Amendment does not mean that it does not provide an insight into her Iraq War vote. The same argument (that people don't know) could probably be made for most legislation, but just b/c people are unaware of something does not make it POV. I am just looking to include a mention of a decent amount of criticism among well-informed members of the media that her vote against this amendment puts her later framing of her vote into question. Would you be averse to a half sentence addition to that second to the last sentence, with wording similar to the wording in the political positions article about Bernstein and other authors' skepticism of her later framing of the vote as for diplomacy? Pkmilitia 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Well, I still don't like burdening the description of what she did in 2003 with the arguments about it people are making in 2007. It belongs in the material that discusses her later framing, which means the Political positions or Campaign articles. Wasted Time R 04:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pkmilitia 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Picture

Can someone remove that picture and put one up that hasn't been touched up? That picture doesn't look remotely real. [19:07, 30 July 2007 63.237.78.40]

No. Due to Wikipedia's very restrictive image copyright rules, there's only a small number of photographs available for us to use, and as far as I know that's the best for the top one. Wasted Time R 19:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely, there is a picture available somehwere in compliance with copyright where Mrs.Clinton does not have such a pretentious smile? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.205.118.97 (talk) 11:49:02, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Find one, and we'll consider using it. Wasted Time R 14:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we use this one? :-) Ferrylodge 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

corporate connections

surely the fact that someone who could potentially become US president used to serve on the board of americas second largest corporation (wal-mart) deserves more than a passing mention, especially in light of well documented labour rights abuses by the firm, notably use of third world sweatshops and union busting of its US workforce further, as walmartwatch.com points out, "A May 2004 report documented how Wal-Mart received more than $1 billion from at least 244 taxpayer-funded subsidies -- including free or reduced price land, Tax Increment Finance (TIF) districts, infrastructure assistance, property tax breaks, state corporate income tax credits, sales tax rebates, tax-exempt bond financing, enterprise zone status, job training/recruiting funds and general grants." Of course this is nothing to do with their friends in high places, but isnt the relationship a little more significant than the one line mention suggests [16:03, 9 August 2007 89.243.33.142]

Yes. I've now expanded the material on her Wal-Mart board time. Wasted Time R 14:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

political positions or 'perception'

why is it that there are no actual positions listed in the 'political positions' section? polls of where Americans *think* she lies on the political spectrum are hardly conclusive or precise stances. [06:47, 14 August 2007 69.27.79.149]

See that line "Main article: Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton"? Click. Wasted Time R 10:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion

The subject's religious affiliation (in the info box) should probably be clarified as United Methodist, rather than the more vague Methodist.

Sources:

United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries news release, April 24, 1996 [1]
washingtonpost.com 2008 Presidential Candidate page [2]
Pew Forum 2008 Candidate Background [3]

Go2dell 06:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. I didn't change the reference to the Methodist family she grew up in (the Park Ridge church was United Methodist, but can't tell what the Scranton Court Street Methodist Church was that her father belonged to and that she was christened in) or the Methodist wedding ceremony (LH isn't more specific). Wasted Time R 11:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The church still exists in the UMC database as "Court Street," which means it is properly Court Street United Methodist Church. There is a matching listing in the Scranton phone directory for Court Street United Methodist Church, ZIP 18508. When speaking of UMCs, the "United" is frequently dropped (and sometimes even the "Methodist"), but I think accuracy is important. Go2dell 04:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the research, I've changed that 'Early life' reference to be more specific. Wasted Time R 11:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

International news story about POV pushing on WP..Democrats are guilty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm This new story is saying that WP has proven that the Democratic Party has POV pushed to smear its opponents (and the CIA did the same to Iran). Therefore, beware of POV pushing to smear Republicans and POV pushing to delete all but the most positive information on the Democrats. Actually, it's conceivable that the Republicans could do the same but there is no evidence that this has happened.

This may explain the edit warring at Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Anyone who reverts this warning is suspect to being a POV pusher unless you can prove the BBC is wrong and the Wikipedia did not actually determine that the Democrats and CIA were involved.Warningwarningwarning 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WP determined this, not me or the BBC. If you disagree, tell ArbCom that they are wrong. Warningwarningwarning 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The "BBC didn't do it" is laughable. But if the Democrats, Republican, CIA or KGB edit here, and edit according to our guidelines, nobody cares. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't explain edit warring. Normal WP editors are quite capable of it all by themselves! Wasted Time R 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Actually, it's conceivable that the Republicans could do the same but there is no evidence that this has happened." That is probably one of the funnier comments I've seen on Talk recently. Donald Segretti - are you listening? Tvoz |talk 19:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem with almost all candidates running for a 2008 party nomination. POV is almost always skewed towards their campaign propaganda. The good thing is that they love the camera, so there is hours of video documenting their public oratory if you can find it. CSPAN is a great source. My personal POV edit gripe is the removal of her documented comments in 2005 at a German conference admitting regret for her silence during the Rwanda genocide in 1994 while she was pushing her national health care plan. Self documented failure to speak out seems to be a pattern cleansed from this article. Rwanda, Patriot Act, Iraq invasion funding, ... GrEp 02:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to putting her Rwanda remark somewhere, but where you put it was very clumsy - at the end of the paragraph on the health care initiative, which it had nothing to do with, and with a 2005 mention in the text (should be in a footnote, so as not to disrupt the historical flow). In my edit comment I suggested you put it in the Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton article, where I think it better belongs, as it goes towards the general conundrum of when and whether to intervene in foreign civil conflicts. Wasted Time R 03:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The chronology of the article is somewhat arbitrary and seems to be based more around political issues than a timeline of events. I tried to place it with the event that was closest in time (1994). Perhaps some work should be done to re-order her first lady section into a more chronological form.GrEp 18:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

GrEp, I'm looking at the her actual speech at the 2005 Munich Conference on Security Policy - it's at http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2005=&id=157&sprache=en& - and I don't see anywhere that she "expressed regret for not publicly denouncing" or "admits regret for her silence" regarding the Rwandan genocide. Rather she says that the UN Security Council failed to meet its obligations and that lack of response to what was happening was a tragic failure that can't be allowed to happen again. But I see nothing at all about her personal actions or responsibility. Am I missing something? Wasted Time R 02:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section

I thought we reached consensus to not have a controversies section, but to integrate them into the main and sub articles as appropriate - did I miss something? Tvoz |talk 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There was discussion here about replacing the controversies article with a list. Wasted Time responded to that suggestion: "We'll see; maybe a category would do just as well. Wasted Time R 13:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)" I pointed out that "Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of pages from it, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available. Ferrylodge 22:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)" Gloriamarie responded, "That idea sounds like a good one.--Gloriamarie 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)" The reason I did not immediately implement this suggestion last month is because it took some time to put it together.Ferrylodge 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that - I don't think we actually reached a conclusion on it - thought we were waiting to see how the integration worked. I appreciate the amount of work it must have taken to do the list, but I am not sure it's the best way to go - we've been trying to get away from such compilations that mix together major and minor and infinitesimal "controversies". Some are only worthy of footnote weight if that, and elevating them all to equal stature is what I thought we were trying to avoid. Tvoz |talk 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to object against having a list mentioned in the main article, then this talk page would be the correct place to do it. However, if you would like to object against the existence of the list, or object against some of its contents, then I suppose the best place to have that discussion would be at the talk page for the list.Ferrylodge 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think a category is best, because it will only pick up those controversies serious enough to merit their own articles. The attempt in this new list to keep track of the footnoted items in the main article is doomed to failure, because it hardcodes note numbers that will often change with edits to the main article. Wasted Time R 18:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that items on the list should not link directly to footnotes (assuming that the note numbers are thrown off), and I have modified the list accordingly. Regarding the notion that only controversies should be listed that correspond to complete articles, that would be very different from how controversies are treated for all other candidates. As far as I am aware, none of those controversies correspond to complete articles.

Additionally, as I mentioned in July (without prompting any dissent), "Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of pages from it, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available."Ferrylodge 20:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Clinton controversies are more important than any of the rest of the article, and should be merged with the main article. It's the wikipedia equivelent of having an Adolph Hitler page that emphasizes his art and architecture accompliements along with a link to a Controversies Section that contains WWII and the Holocaust.-G 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Godwin's Law. Wasted Time R 14:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

G, the Controversies Section links to a list of topics that have already been merged into various other articles. And perhaps you could use a different analogy.Ferrylodge 15:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To offer another analogy: it would be comparable to having a Wiki page about Current President George W. Bush that cites his accomplishments without giving mention to the great many controversies surrounding him (such as Scooter Libby), or a page on Former President Richard Nixon that didn't mention the Watergate Scandal*.

Though you can argue the Watergate is an article in itself, it should still be given a paragraph or two. Again, its just an analogy. [11:59, 19 August 2007 68.205.118.97]

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~) at the end. As mentioned, the Controversies Section links to a list of topics that have already been merged into various other articles.Ferrylodge 14:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

G/68.205.118.97, what controversy do you think is missing from the Hillary Rodham Clinton article? It does discuss cattle futures, Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, and so on. And as with Watergate, in each of those cases there is a separate article that goes into the topic (and Hillary's role in it) in much more detail. So what exactly is the problem? Wasted Time R 15:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to get very invloved because I haven't worked on the Hillary article at all, but you might like an outsider's opinion. The Watergate scandal is covered in depth in Richard Nixon's article, and provids a link to the larger Watergate scandal article, but the controversies section in Hillary's article gets one sentence and a link to a longer article. Maybe some of the controversies should be listed, and the role that Hillary played in all of them should be mentioned. Best, Happyme22 18:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The "role" she played in many of the "controversies" that were listed in that list the last time I looked at it (I have not looked in a few days, so maybe it has changed) was to be the target. To compare Watergate to any of the Hillary Clinton "controversies" - or even all of them added up together - suggests a lack of understanding of what Watergate was about. Tvoz |talk 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's become clear to me by confusion such as from User:Happyme22 that the Controversies section pointing to the Controversies list just isn't working. People see Controversies in the Table of Contents, they zoom to that section, they see almost nothing, they click to the List, they see almost nothing, and complain that the main article is ignoring Whitewater et al. The integration of the controversies into the main article only works if there is no other Controversies section, list, etc. for people to get misled by. Thus I have removed the section. Wasted Time R 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. Tvoz |talk 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't want to be very invloved, but I don't think that your removing the section was the greatest solution. I'll even provide for you a good example of what the section could look like to start you guys off:

"Hillary Clinton has been involved in numerous controversies, notably official enquiries into her business dealings in Arkansas and her involvement in the administration of her husband, as well as controversial public statements that attracted media attention. Some of the more well-known controversies include: Whitewater, which concerned the real-estate dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton ([4]); Commercegate, in which Mrs. Clinton allegedly supported and the selling of United States federal planes going on international trade missionsto raise campaign contributions([5]); and Travelgate in which Mrs. Clinton allegedly played a central role in the firing of White House Travel Office Employees, and not making true statements about her role in the firings([6])."

Those were taken from the page List of Hillary Rodham Clinton Controversies; from there I just looked in the leads of Whitewater, Travelgate, and Commercegate. I supplied the first source I found in the references section on the page, so the sources I gave might not be accurate (but they might!). Again, I think some mention of the controversies she and her husband we involved in should be mentioned; Iran Contra is in Ronald Reagan's article and Watergate is in Nixon's. And Lewinsky-gate is in her husband Bill's. Best, Happyme22 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Happyme22 that removing the section was not a good solution. This article has had a Controversies section pretty much continuously since at least July of 2005 (see here). There is no consensus to delete the Controversies section, especially based upon a comment from a person (Happyme22) who says that he does not want it removed. Accordingly, I will restore the section.Ferrylodge 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Happyme22, please read the article!! Go to the top. Whitewater is mentioned in the intro. Then go to the First Lady of the United States section. There is a whole long paragraph on Whitewater, beginning with "Starting during the 1992 presidential campaign, and throughout her time as First Lady, the Whitewater controversy was the subject of attention...." Then there is another longer paragraph on other investigations during that time, beginning with "Other investigations took place during Hillary Clinton's time as First Lady...." And each of these paragraphs has wikilinks to the full articles on those affairs. Are you not seeing these?? Wasted Time R 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying a new angle. The text in the Controversies section in this article now explicitly explains the "game plan" of what we are trying to do in the HRC articles. It won't make Tvoz happy, and it doesn't make me happy, but it should at least cure the confusion that G and Happyme22 had. Wasted Time R 23:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it does not make me happy. I believe describing our "game plan" is in violation of WP:SELF. We don't have "meta" comments in articles that talk about what we're doing in an article or where one can find other things - only the italicized template pointers and "See also"s. I'm removing it as I believe it is a policy violation, but also it is not necessary - the article is full of all of the major and minor, meaningful and idiotic, controversies - and the really big ones have their own articles that are wikilinked. All one has to do is read the article. That's why we integrated the controversies right into the text - done with consensus of more than just Wasted and me - JReferee, Italiavivi, I think Bobblehead, and others have commented against controversy sections and in favor of integration here and on the related HRC pages. So to have the material integrated, and then set up a controversies section in addition, adds to the confusion and does not represent consensus. But as a meta section it also violated policy so I am removing it. Tvoz |talk 00:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, on the narrow point you raise, I think you're wrong about it being a violation of WP:SELF, which refers to self-reference to the Wikipedia or web nature of the article. Self-reference to the article itself ("this article") is explicitly allowed, as it mimics traditional writing (many a textbook or reference work has announced its organization in such a manner). Wasted Time R 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted Time that there is no violation of WP:SELF. But even if Tvoz were correct, that is no justification for deleting a section that has been in this article almost continuously for more than two years, and to do so against consensus. If there is a new problem with the section then it should be fixed, rtaher than blanking the whole section (or blanking the whole article, for that matter). A standard way to reference a list is shown here, and I suggest we do so in the Controversies section, which I'll now restore pending further discussion.Ferrylodge 00:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The section wasn't just blanked out of the blue - lengthy discussions took place about integrating the controversies into the article and eliminating the separate section and separate article. As for WP:SELF , let me look into that a bit more - I may have done that too quickly and hit on the wrong policy - if so, I apologize and will see if I can find the one I was thinking of. Back later. Tvoz |talk 00:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz is right, there was consensus at the time to dismantle the controversies page and spread it out among the regular articles. This was done to satisfy real concerns about WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism that she, I, and others had. Ferrylodge did in fact raise concerns at that time about needing a list to point to the disperses article pieces. We never really reached a consensus about that; that's what we're trying to do now. I personally think that Ferrylodge's current list also runs afoul of some of these rules and guidelines, although to a lesser degree than before. I will also say that Ferrylodge's attempt to invoke some notion of Stare decisis for articles carries no weight in Wikipedia. From Jimmy Wales on down, the WP powers-that-be often suggest or indeed require radical changes to better improve the fairness and reliability of articles. Wasted Time R 01:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to making changes to longstanding material if we can develop a consensus for doing so. Right now, the Controversies section looks completely innocuous to me, and it serves an important purpose, just like the controversies sections for Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani.Ferrylodge 01:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The "important purpose" seems to some of us to be, "Let me read every bad thing some political figure has ever been accused of, without having to read the full biography of that person." Does that seem like a neutral way to organize material about someone? Have you ever read a quality biographical book that was organized like that? Or an Encyclopedia Brittanica entry that was organized like that? Wasted Time R 01:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasted Time, if you would like to propose the List of Hillary Rodham Clinton Controversies in Articles for Deletion, then perhaps that would probably be the best way for you to try to build consensus on this issue. My own view is that controversies are inherently newsworthy, and inherently attract peoples' interest. Therefore, giving people a handy guide to HRC controversies is helpful, seeing as how they are now scattered amongst a wide variety of articles. It also seems at least noteworthy that both Giuliani and Thompson have Controversy articles; of course, just because "other crap exists" doesn't mean that the same should apply to HRC. Nevertheless, dividing HRC's life into "controversies" and "non-controversies" is a perfectly legitimate way to categorize information about her, and I do not see any reason why this Wikipedia article should withhold from interested readers that categorization.Ferrylodge 01:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Thompson controversies! That ended up with no consensus whatsoever, and thus was kept by default. It's very frustrating that each individual set of editors on each individual article is trying to figure out what the right thing to do is. I want Jimmy Wales to tell us, or Bureaucrats or Super Admins, and I'll happily abide. But based on what you said above, you won't object if I create List of Hillary Rodham Clinton historic accomplishments? Wasted Time R 02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that list would be so short as to be [garbled]. :-) Ferrylodge 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting close to putting this article up for FA. As such, I want to go with the current "true design" of the article, based on all the previous analyses about NPOV and forking, which is to not have any Controversies section (including the link to a List of controversies page) in it, and instead just have the articles themselves describe controversial matters as they come up. We'll then see what the FA reviewers think. Wasted Time R 00:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Subsections added in the First Lady section

I've added some sorely needed subsections in the long First Lady section. The way I did it organizes it by topic, and breaks the chronology a bit, but I think it improves the readability, and I hope the existence now of a ToC-visible section called "Whitewater and other investigations" will help people find this material, and not think it was left out!! Wasted Time R 23:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The First Lady section says, "She was the first First Lady to hold a post-graduate degree and to have her own professional career." That seems a bit exaggerated. For example, Nancy Davis had a long professional career as an actress from 1948 to 1962. Also, Eleanor Roosevelt received a Doctorate of Humane Letters as early as 1929. Any thoughts?Ferrylodge 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Eleanor Roosevelt degree was an honorary one, which is a whole different matter - she didn't earn it through the normal process of study and scholarly work, and so it doesn't count in this regard. The "own professional career" needs to be modified to include, "at the time of becoming First Lady". Otherwise, you're right, Nancy could be included, as well as Betty Ford (dancer and dance instructor) and arguably Pat Nixon (a bunch of things). I'll make the change. Wasted Time R 00:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Laura Bush is the second FL to hold a post-grad degree (MLS). I added that to her article a long time ago, but I see it hasn't stayed in. Too bad.... Wasted Time R 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the article. In fairness to people like Eleanor Roosevelt, though, the article ought to say that Hillary was the first First Lady who had obtained a post-graduate education, etc. After all, honorary degrees are often postgraduate, as was Eleanor Roosevelt's. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-graduate_study#Honorary_degrees To say that Eleanor Roosevelt's postgraduate degree "doesn't count" is somewhat unkind to her, considering that she earned it as surely as Hillary earned hers. IMHO.Ferrylodge 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the cultural point being made in the article, honorary degrees are irrelevant - we're looking at how HRC is was an indicator of how the educational levels of women, and women married to politicians, haven risen in recent times ... and Eleanor Roosevelt didn't even attend college, much less any post-grad school. Eleanor Roosevelt had tremendous accomplishments in her life, but they did not include academic study. Nevertheless, I've added a footnote re her case. Wasted Time R 00:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the footnote.Ferrylodge 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding her professional career, I agree that she seems to be the only first lady who had a professional career at the time of becoming first lady. She was a law partner in a prestigious law firm, after all. Therefore, I think her profession should be listed in the sidebar as "attorney." Currently, it also says: Policy Maker, Politician, Public Service Advocate, and I think all of those vague things should be deleted. If all of those vague things qualify as a "profession" then of course HRC would not have been the only first lady who had a professional career at the time of becoming first lady. What do you think?Ferrylodge 01:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, "Politician" also belongs for sure - that's what she has been for the last 7 years as a Senator. The other two are probably trying to describe what she did as US FL and Arkansas FL ... I don't have a strong opinion about them either way. Wasted Time R 02:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess we'll leave "politician" for now, although someone like Eleanor Roosevelt seems to have fit that bill as well, leading up to her first ladyship. Anyway, I'll remove "policy maker" and "public service advocate" which sound a bit like resume-padding.Ferrylodge 02:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal Services Corporation

The sidebar spells "Coproration" wrong. Moreover, Hillary Clinton served from 1978 to 1981, not 1977 to 1983.[7] The term for such position is three years, after all. Reagan never nominated her for anything. I'll correct the article accordingly.Ferrylodge 01:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in the section on her law career as her being there from 1977 until 1983. Hmm... Sure she didn't serve 2 terms? . . .

Please sign your comments. Hillary succeeded William Janklow in 1978. Clarence V. McKee succeeded Hillary on January 22, 1982. She thus served from 1978 thru 1981.Ferrylodge 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would give the months as well as the years, to make it clear exactly when she served (it did include 12 months under the Reagan administration). Wasted Time R 02:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still unclear when she took office, and when she left office. The date when she was nominated, and the date when her successor took office, do not resolve that question.Ferrylodge 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The article currently refers to the "United States Legal Services Corporation." I suggest changing this to simply "Legal Services Corporation." The term "Legal Service Corporation" gets 303,000 google hits. In contrast, the term "United States Legal Services Corporation" gets only 29 hits. Note that the organization is a private, non-profit corporation.Ferrylodge 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the info on the side about the Legal Services Corporation is confusing for another reason. Neither Janklow nor McKee was chair of the LSC, as far as I know. In other words, presidents appoint members, and the members decide among themselves who will be Chair. It's not like the U.S. Supreme Court, where the President specifically appoints someone to the position of top dog. Therefore, either the word "Chair" should be removed from the box on the right-hand-side, or alternatively Janklow and McKee should not be listed. I will go with the latter approach, unless there are any objections. (I will also delete the "United States" for the reasons explained in my previous comment above.)Ferrylodge 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I did some further research about this. Turns out that Hillary Clinton was not Chair of the LSC from 1978-1981. She served on the LSC for that time period, but was not the Chair throughout that time period. For example, from 1980-1981, the Chair was F. William McCalpin. Therefore, I plan to remove the word "Chair" from the sidebar, and reinsert Janklow and McKee as predecessor and successor. I have no idea how long Hillary Clinton may have served as Chair of the LSC.Ferrylodge 02:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Olson's Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton says on page 128 that "More important, she was appointed to the board of the Legal Services Corporation, becoming its chairman in 1978." Roger Morris's Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America says on page 225 that she had been "the first woman chair of the Legal Services Corporation". Wasted Time R 12:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And she was still chair into 1980. The House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1980 has an excerpt of hearings, which says: "Ms. Hillary Rodham, who is an attorney from Arkansas, who is the Chairman of our Board. She just had a baby a few weeks ago, and is unable to be here today." Chelsea was born on Feb. 27, 1980. Similarly, the LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION REAUTHORIZATION Hearings of the Committee on the Judiciary, published 1981 but possibly taking place the previous year, says "Ms. Hillary Rodham, Chairman of our Board, extends her warm regards to ..." Alas these documents aren't on the Congressional websites as far as I can tell (little before the mid-1990s is); I'm using Google Books to read snippets of them. Wasted Time R 13:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill says she was Chair [8] - he might know a thing or two about that. Also, I put United States back in the box - there are state LSCs too. Anyway, the link doesn't connect them to Google. Chair should be kept in the box.

Please sign your comments. No one is disputing that she was Chair at some point. However, she was clearly not Chair for her entire tenure; from 1980-1981, the Chair was F. William McCalpin. The Chair of the LSC is chosen by its members, as already explained, and not by the President. Thus, the edits you have made are incorrect.

Moreover, the LSC is a private, non-profit corporation; that is why the term "Legal Service Corporation" gets 303,000 google hits whereas the term "United States Legal Services Corporation" gets only 29 hits. Additionally, the Wikipedia article about the LSC does not include "U.S." or "United States" in the name of that organization, nor does that organization's own web site; any confused person can click on the link in the present Wikipedia article to learn more about the LSC.

If there is no objection, I will restore the correct name of that organization, and delete the incorrect statement that she served as Chair from 1978-1981.Ferrylodge 14:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the text of the article to say she was chair from 1978 through part of 1980, giving the above citations. I haven't touched the infobox and I'm agnostic on the "U.S." or not. Wasted Time R 15:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the infobox on the right-hand-side. Janklow and McKee never served as chair. Also Hillary Clinton did not serve as Chair in 1981. If people want the infobox to note that she served as chair, then I guess the only way to do that would be a separate entry, just like Bill Frist has one entry for being a US Senator, and another entry for being Senate Majority Leader. But personally I think it's sufficient to mention Hillary Clinton's chairmanship of the LSC in the text. As for the name, no one calls it the USLSC.Ferrylodge 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Bill says she became the board chair at 29. As for wether or not to use "U.S." or "United States" it should at least say "National LSC" as there are state LSCs as well. Also, if she served as a board member and chair at different times, different boxes are needed. [9]: This says she served unitl '83 K157 20:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Hillary says she served as Chair from 1979-1980. And all of the states LSCs end with the name of the state, which is how confusion is avoided (e.g. "Legal Services Corporation of Virginia"). If there is no state at the end, then everyone knows the national organization is meant. Let's not go giving new names to organizations, okay?Ferrylodge 20:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then I'll put 79 - 80. People may believe that Hillary's LSC is incomplete. "National" "U.S." or "United States" is needed.

Wait - nowhere is there a quote from Hillary - they could be so wrong. It think Bill was by her side as she took up the job for the Carter Administration and he should know better than any of us.

(undent) It is silly to have a separate box for this. Do you want a separate box for all her Senate committee assignments and/or chairmanships too? And I think Hillary would know better than Bill when she was Chair.[10]Ferrylodge 20:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, give me the page that has her saying what years she was on the board. These aren't her words, they are a (probably wrong) summary of the interview. I will cease should you find where she herself tells us she served from 78 - 80; Hillary should know better than Bill, but on your link Hill tells nothing. Bill should know better than whoever on your website.K157 01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're correct that Bill Clinton says she became Board Chair when she was 29, then she would have become Board Chair between October 1976 and October 1977, which would be pretty impressive considering that she hadn't even been nominated to the Board by then.Ferrylodge 01:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We know exactly when she was nominated - December 12th, 1977 per http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=7006 - even the announcement gives her age as 30 - Bill Clinton must have been trying to make her a year younger, yet another attempt to make up for not having been the world's best husband ;-) Wasted Time R 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... or Presidents are human too and also make mistakes. In any case, it was 77.K157 23:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I say let's impeach him. Tvoz |talk 23:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally a reliabe source for her years with LSC

Required reading: A Woman in Charge, Carl Bernstein.

We all know she was appointed 12/12/77.

Says Carl, her term ended in 1982. Reagan did not have to reappoint her. He didn't when her term expried as they butted heads when he wanted the board to reduce spending while she increased it to 300 million from 90 million. Mr. Bernstein has researched extensivly into the life of Mrs. Clinton. Chairwoman Hillary Rodham's years on LSC should be better-know by someone who reaserched her entrie story than some questionable websites prone to error. "A few months (after her appointment) Carter asked her to chair the board." - Page 133. "...Hillary's term as chair person expired in 1982..." Also page 133. Unless we add exact dates, it it fitting to add chair - as a seperate title - in the same box. Thank you. K157 23:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

She was nominated on 12/12/77.[11] The Senate still had to confirm her, and then Carter appointed her in 1978. And she was gone by 1/22/82.[12] There are no sources more reliable than these.

As to when she was chair, there are multiple conflicting sources. Two of them are cited in the article, and you can add Bernstein if you like. The infobox should stay as it is, though.Ferrylodge 23:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so sure. Say she was - HYPOTHETICALLY, SHE'S NOT REALLY - the Senate Majority Leader but unreliable sources differed on when she served, so she was simply put down as "senator" and that's it. Important leadership info would be missing. Bernstein's statement seems quite reliable and is the most cited date. Bernstein has good sources for this, something other websites lack. Also, he metions her warfare with Ronnie's admin. as LSC Chief; hardly possible if she wasn't on the board then K157 00:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC).

Spent some time at the library tonight. Looked at half a dozen Hillary biographies that mention her involvement with the LSC (didn't find Gerth & Van Natta, but looked at most of the other well-known ones). Alas, none of them agree with each other. Some have her starting on the board in 1978, one in 1979. Two have her becoming chair a month after joining the board, others don't say or are more vague as with Bernstein. Two have her leaving the board at the end of 1980, as the outgoing Carter nominates her for another term but the 1981 now-Republican-controlled Senate refuses to act on her re-confirmation. Two others, including Bernstein, have her successfully waging battle against President Reagan, then leaving at the end of 1982.

I don't trust any of these books, Bernstein included (who is the "source" of the nonsense that K157 repeated, that Reagan was Governor of California in 1980). I don't think any have gone back to primary documents, but rather are regurgitating other secondary accounts; indeed, if I remember right the Bernstein account is a rehash of someone else's, the Sheehy one I think.

So, I think the true, definitive account of Hillary at the LSC remains to be written. Someone needs to go dig out primary sources and contemporaneous newspaper accounts and see what really happened when. Wasted Time R 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Succession Boxes

Succession boxes are all screwed up; someone should fix that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K157 (talk • contribs) 22:38, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

K157, I think you've gone way overboard on succession boxes for this article. "Wife of the Democratic candidate for President of the United States" is a stretch. "Candidate of the State of New York for the United States Senate" is more than a stretch. Four different boxes of magazine rankings of powerful women? Ridiculous. You've got so much triviality in there, readers won't be able to see the ones that are actually important. Wasted Time R 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Countless other articles have candidacy for congress in the boxes and it seems it is hardly considered a stretch in those article. It was not my idea to put the canidate's spouse box there, though I did it, as it was only fitting that it should be here, as it appears in the articles of Tipper Gore and Teresa Heinz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K157 (talk • contribs) 02:24, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Far too many boxes to remain useful - "wife of the democratic candidate for president of the united states" is sexist to boot - so if Hillary gets the nomination, how does it accommodate Bill? And more importantly, this particular one is eclipsed by First Lady, as is the candidate for senate box eclipsed by being the senator. These boxes probably should not be in the other articles either, but in any case that's no excuse for putting them here. And the magazine group are completely ridiculous. I think we should remove the lot of them and return to the ones that are actually useful and notable. Tvoz |talk 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And, by the way, the candidate 's wife box is not on Tipper Gore or Kitty Dukakis and I think it is questionable on Teresa Heinz whose notability does not derive solely from being John Kerry's wife. Tvoz |talk 18:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, having them there, where they are now placed, renders the actually important ones hard to find, so they are actually harming the article. Tvoz |talk 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed "Wives of Democratic Candidates" and "candidates for NY senate" boxes and moved the magazine rankings to the HRC Awards article where it more appropriately belongs - we no longer have a detailed section in the main article on awards, just a pointer, so these belong there if they belong anywhere. Also changed the header for the First Ladies boxes from "Party political office" which makes no sense to "Honorary titles" which is how it is on Laura Bush and seems reasonable - these are in no way party offices. Tvoz |talk 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

good idea4.246.248.74 03:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

I'm not a fan of trivia sections, but should there be an area (probably a "see also" article) for cultural/media portrayals? I wasn't able to find one if it exists. This appears to be a common practice (Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush, The Statue of Liberty in popular culture, Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln to name a few) for high-profile subjects. I think it would be an interesting read. Rompe 08:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there have been that many notable portrayals. A couple on SNL (I don't even remember who played her), Emma Thompson's fictionalized role in Primary Colors, ... what else? Wasted Time R 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, which is why I posted here. I'm pretty sure Caroline Reynolds (character on Prison Break) was meant to reflect on her character, but other than that and the things you mentioned, nothing special comes to mind. That will probably change when she's president though. Rompe 22:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But "meant to reflect on her character" wouldn't make it - that would probably be OR unless third parties have made the point. Not sure there's enough to warrant an article, and I wouldn't want to see it in this one. Tvoz |talk 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

section head

The Presidential campaign of 2008 is really not a sub-set of her Senate career, any more than the Senate campaign was a sub-set of her First Lady tenure. These are separate entities, and it is consistent with all of the other candidate pages that I looked at - across the spectrum from Obama to Brownback. Re-election to the Senate is one thing - but going for a different office is more properly handled as its own thing. Tvoz |talk 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I only changed the presidential one to be consistent with how User:Happyme22 changed the senatorial one. I'm happy to see them both go back to where they were. Wasted Time R 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh - I didn't notice Happy's change - I will take a look at that too. I also changed "election" to "campaign" in the presidential head - not to get ahead of ourselves. Tvoz |talk 18:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - I hadn't looked carefully enough - I agree that as we now have it, and had it previously, is correct: Senate campaign and presidential campaign as their own sections, not part of FL or Senate. Tvoz |talk 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes/additions based on the Bernstein book

User:Tvoz was correct to revert User:K157's set of changes from last night. They radically changed the early sectioning of the article, without getting consensus here first; they went into too much detail and gave undue weight to her early activities (does her time as LSC board chair really deserve more space than the 1993-94 Clinton health care plan?); they were not written in formal language (we do not refer to people by their first names); they were full of bad misspellings and other mistakes; and they botched the references section after a while. In other words, as Tvoz said, they wrecked a GA article. And to be honest, K157, if your writing skills are this limited, you should not be making these kinds of changes to this kind of very highly visible, already GA article.

That said, the Bernstein book is a decent source and some aspects of the Washington/Arkansas section could use a little fleshing out. We should indeed say something about her tenure on the LSC. But what we say has to be done very succinctly, less this already long article get out of hand. Or unless we want to add new subarticles about some of these topics. Later today I will attempt to pick through the reverted changes and add back in what is useful, rendered in a concise way. Wasted Time R 11:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added back in my attempt at a succinct description of what she did as LSC chair. And the "subarticle" for this already exists, Legal Services Corporation itself. So I've put more of what K157 wrote into that article, since it can go into much more detail there. However, one thing that K157 wrote makes no sense (Reagan was not Governor of California in 1980, so how could he attempt to reduce LSC state funds then?), and the triumph of Rodham over Reagan portrayed here is possibly at odds with the existing LSC article, which says that Reagan did get through a big LSC funding cut and grant restrictions. Maybe later, after Rodham left? But that's a subject for that article to deal with. Wasted Time R 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read your changes yet, but I'm sure that there were some things that needed reinstating, so I have no problem with that at all. I just couldn't deal with trying to revert those massive changes one at a time because they were too difficult to follow and find. I'd like to have a discussion about the infoboxes (the ones on the top under her picture) next. Her time as one of the legal counsels to the Judiciary committee during Watergate should certainly be discussed in the article, as it is. But I strongly object to it being an infobox - it is not that kind of position, and it does not make any sense to be there with that prominence. Nor, in my opinion, should the LSC stuff be an infobox. By the way, Janklow doesn't have this as an infobox and the other guy just directs to the LSC page. I think this is a bogus use of infoboxes. By all means we should talk about both in the article, but neither is as significant as being in the infobox suggests, and I don't know what point is trying to be made by adding them. So, I'd like to follow precedent of most other biographies and limit the infoboxes now to senator and US First Lady. We correctly removed FL of Arkansas from infoboxes, just as Laura Bush doesn't have FL of Texas. It's a matter of importance, or notability in the context of the person's life, I think. I would like to remove both of those two - what do others think? Tvoz |talk 22:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz.Ferrylodge 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The infobox for HRC as LSC chair is debatable, but the infobox for HRC as "Legal Counsel of the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee" is ludicrously inappropriate. By her own description (Living History pp. 65-69) she was a young, inexperienced attorney, three levels down at the bottom of the org chart, doing grunt legal work for the committee. It was a formative experience for her, and definitely deserves to be in the article, but in no way is it infobox material. Let the infoboxes, if any, go to the actual lead counsels of such bodies, such as Sam Dash, Fred Dalton Thompson, John Doar, Michael Chertoff, etc. Wasted Time R 02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Will see if anyone else weighs in, but we seem to have some consensus here for removal. As for LSC - there's not even any precedent that I see for it being elevated to inboxhood - see the other names in the box. In fact, Janklow's article text doesn't even mention the LSC except to say he was a Legal Services lawyer on an Indian reservation - nothing about chairing it - so how important is this really? I'd like to remove both so that the truly relevant two remain and don't get lost in the crowd. There's even an argument for removing FL, and I'd be willing to talk about that too. Note that the succession boxes are there, and more importantly the article talks anbout these points in her life. Tvoz |talk 08:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the House Judiciary Committee infobox, per strong consensus. Regarding LSC, I'd support removing that too, but will let someone else do the honors. The wikilink to McKee is bogus, by the way.Ferrylodge 13:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Here's a complete list of all the chairs of the LSC since it was founded:

Marshall Jordan Breger

Robert Emmett McCarthy

William C. Durant III

George W. Wittgraf

Douglas S. Eakeley

Frank B. Strickland

As you can tell from the redlinks, not one of them has been considered notable enough for a Wikiepia article, much less a Wikipedia article with a big infobox on the right-hand-side.Ferrylodge 16:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better - thanks for taking care of those two. I think this makes a lot more sense. After looking into this some more, I don't think the "succession box" for LSC should exist either - and I couldn't find it on any other article, so I removed it. It's not even clear that Janklow and McKee were chairs, according to the above list - the whole thing is murky and not important enough to warrant such prominent display. We have plenty more to cover in this article. Tvoz |talk 05:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Offices in infobox

Should be there: —Preceding unsigned comment added by K157 (talk • contribs)

{{Infobox Senator | office4=Board Member, Legal Services Corporation
_{Chair of the LSC from 1978 to 1982} | term_start4=2977 | term_end4=4982 | president4=Jimmy Carter
| preceded4=William Janklow | succeeded4=Clarence V. McKee | date of birth= (1947-10-26) October 26, 1947 (age 77) | place of birth= Chicago, Illinois | height=174 cm | religion=United Methodist | law school=Yale Law School, 1973 | spouse= Dick Cheny | profession= Attorney, Politician | children = [[George Bush] | alma_mater=Wellesley College
Yale University | signature = HRClintonSignature.png |}}

I disagree - see above Tvoz |talk 22:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal wealth

I just read this article from MSN which puts Senator Clinton's personal net worth at $50 million. I scanned this article and don't see mention of this; rather than add it myself, I'll leave it to the discretion of you regular contributors if (and where) it should be placed. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 12:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Now added, to the second term senator section. Wasted Time R 00:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. :) faithless (^speak) 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Health Care plan

Care should be taken to distinguish the 1993 Clinton health care plan (just renamed to include "1993") from HRC's newly announced plan - we presently have it in this article, but if it gets expanded into its own article it should not be put into the one about the 1993 plan, but should be on its own. Tvoz |talk 07:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

She is not a lesbian

Five sources listed and more exists. She said firmly recently that she is not a lesbian. She had been rumored to be.E343ll 22:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

3 of those sources refer to the same article. 1 of them looks to be a blog. There's no way this is notable enough to deserve its own subsection and I highly question whether it should be in the article at all. I'm removing it for now. -Maximusveritas 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the references is CNN. If you remove this then you make people think she IS a lesbian. That is libel. Wikipedia should not commit libel. E343ll 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. Libel is making a false accusation that you know to be false. Not talking about someone else's false smear campaign is not libel in any manner, and we don;t need to give it any more publicity. You've heard of "when did you stop beating your wife?" Tvoz |talk 21:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Countless public figures have had unfounded allegations of homosexuality leveled against them. As it's completely false, we should not dignify it by discussing it, IMHO. faithless (^speak) 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

When multiple newspapers and CNN report it, it is more than a rumor. If it is not mentioned, people think she is a lesbian. That's just what republicans want, to have people think she is a lesbian.E343ll 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In high profile cases, when someone in the public eye goes out and says they are not homosexual, this is notable. See wikipedia articles on Prince Albert, Mayor Ed Koch, Senator Larry Craig. This helps Hillary (unlike if nothing is mentioned and everyone is whispering or if something like "so and so is rumored to be homosexual/end of paragraph)E343ll 21:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As I read WP:BLP, this would have to be a much more credible or often-made "allegation" than it is, to be included in the article. The Truth About Hillary is the "source" that's tried to do the most in this area, but it came up largely empty. There's no there there. See Ryan Seacrest and Clay Aiken, for example, for articles which do discuss it, as the question comes up far more often with them. On the other hand, if Hillary is able to discuss this calmly, I suppose we could too. It's not a mark of shame, and note that the above analogy is imperfect, as being gay is not equivalent to committing physical assault. Wasted Time R 21:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed Koch mentions it because he was unmarried, unseen with women (except for the somewhat farcical thing with Bess Myerson), and talked about a lot at the time. If you look at Talk:Larry Craig/Archive 1, you'll see the editors had huge battles, going to RFCs and the like, about whether to mention it back in the time before the bathroom arrest event. The "allegations" for HRC in this respect are emptier than for either of those two. Wasted Time R 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And please read what I posted on your talk page in response to your note on mine: we are not trying to help or hurt Hillary Clinton, or any subject, we are trying to write a neutral encyclopedia article. Please see edit summaries and talk comments for why editors are reverting your edits, and feel free to discuss, but don't keep changing them back. Tvoz |talk 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke... right? Adding a section called Gay rights and unfounded rumors of lesbianism is patently ridiculous. Why would we have a section on unfounded rumors? There have been so many unfounded rumors about Hillary Clinton that I find it rather suspect that this is the one you feel has to be added in. I also find it odd that you make clearly controversial edits followed by unnecessary "wikifying" of irrelevant words like child and seat. E343ll, I'll assume good faith and point you in the direction of the policy about undue weight. These rumors aren't relevant at all, and should without question be left out of the article. AniMate 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

dab Medicare

As IPs can't edit this article at this time, please dab Medicare wikilinks to Medicare (United States). -- 159.182.1.4 16:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting this and doing the dabs in the other articles. Wasted Time R 16:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

She is a Commisioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; shouldn't this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.62.78 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've added it. Wasted Time R 16:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)