This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Has Chelsea Clinton ever met Jenna and Barbara Bush, the twins? Just wondering. 204.52.215.107 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out another semi-controversial SNL skit. I believe Madonna was host or musical guest and sang "Happy Birthday" to Phil Hartman's president Clinton in parody of Marilyn Monroe's serenade of JFK. From what I remember, Madonna winks towards the balcony box where the Clinton's are sitting, Hartman points to himself and Madonna shakes her head. The actress portraying Hillary does the same and once again, Madonna shakes her head, then mouths the words "not you, her," pointing towards Julia Sweeney who plays Chelsea. I remember the skit sparking a minor controversy at the time.

Yes it goes with the rumor of Hillary 2009-2016 & Chelsea 2017-2024 Presidential dynasty in the planning. That is, Chelsea is being politically groomed during her mother's campaign to follower her and become the first President to openly declare she is a lesbian after gaining office. Although after Bill gets kicked out in 2013 and Hillary is always thereafter escorted by a female adviser "to avoid potential tabloid scandal" -- people will always suspect in retrospect that.... But we'll have to wait and see on any such rumors. 69.23.124.142 ( talk) 02:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following:

In 1993, when Chelsea was still in braces, Rush Limbaugh said the following: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" He then pointed to a video monitor, which switched to a picture of Chelsea. Although Limbaugh has claimed that it was a technical error, as Al Franken documented in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, since the show was on a tape delay, if it truly was a technical error, it could have been corrected prior to airing of the show. In addition, the joke would not have made sense if Limbaugh had not intended for Chelsea's photo to appear on screen, as the White House had no dog. (Buddy did not join the Clinton family until a few years later.)

For the reason that it is completely FALSE.

Sorry, dude, but it's going right back. For one, you haven't proven that the charge was false. It should be reinstated as, if nothing else, an accusation that no one has denied. We don't need the input of anonymous Limbaugh-apologists on this page out to do damage control while sacrificing accuracy. PatrickLMT ( talk) 09:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The following is true: "On November 6, 1992, three days after her father won the elections, in a reference to who is moving in and out of White House, Limbaugh made a reference to Chelsea and Millie, the dog of outgoing President George H. W. Bush. At the moment where Limbaugh said "cute kid," the picture of Millie appeared onscreen. Limbaugh apologized during that show and gave a more lengthy apology a few days later. "

Here is the (partial) transcript:

Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.

RUSH LIMBAUGH

SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)

November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

Now, after this incident, Rush swore off mentioning Chelsea on his show ever again (at least in a negative way and unless Chelsea made a bit of news that was too big not to be mentioned). Rush certainly did NOT go on about Chelsea for a second time in 1993 to compare her to a dog! That quote is phony. It was invented out of the mind of columnist Molly Ivins. (in a Arizona Republic 10/17/93 article which is why some people are putting that fictious quote in 1993)

Note that the person who inserted the phony info, had the proper date for the correct incident, but only an unambiguous "1993" for the phony incident. Citing no specific date.

"if it truly was a technical error, it could have been corrected prior to airing of the show."

Nope. In order to take something out of the program, something would have had to be put in to replace it. And how much of the error do they take out? A couple seconds? The entire segment? Rush did not do retakes and the show was aired only a matter of hours after it was taped. There was NO time to take anything out. Rush's show was aired as is. Mistakes and all. A light blows. It stayed. Flies flying around the studio, it stayed.

"In addition, the joke would not have made sense if Limbaugh had not intended for Chelsea's photo to appear on screen, as the White House had no dog. (Buddy did not join the Clinton family until a few years later.) "

This is assuming that Rush had made that tasteless joke in 1993. Which he hadnt, not in 1993 or at any other time.

In November 1992, he was doing a comparison of IN/OUT lists that were appearing in newspaper and magazine columns at the time. There were dozens of them. Rush was noting the bias of these lists as well.(he pointed out how many time he was on the "out" lists" and how many democrats,l ike the clintons, were on the "in" lists.)

Transcript: "Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to..."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.139.23.50 ( talk • contribs) .

Please cite that the 1993 incidenct is false. -- Asbl 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cite that the incident is false? I thought I already did on this page ! And the burden of proof is upon Rush's accusers. NO ONE can prove a negative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.139.23.50 ( talk • contribs) .

If you can cite that Limbaugh denied the incident ever took place, we can add it to the article. The only reason to remove the paragraph would be if the accusers withdrew the statements. -- Asbl 19:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh has never denied the (correct) Nov. 1992 incident took place. He has never spoken about the false incident attributed to him in 1993, as far as I know.

In that case, we definitely have to keep the paragraph, as you are the only one who claims that the incident never took place. Wikipedia requires verifyability -- Asbl 20:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"verifiabillity"? What kind of verifiabillity did the person who originally posted the (phony) info give? Does he/she have a statement from Limbaugh admitting the (phony) version of events? A transcript? A video clip??? Rush's show was viewed by millions (Myself included) Where are the eyewitnesses? I never missed a show. If I couldnt watch it due to the time (it changed around alot), I taped it. I certainly did NOT see any such incident take place (I saw the Nov. 1992 incident take place. I did not see the "1993" incident take place, EVER.)

Allow me to point out: Rush's show made that mistake when they showed a pic of chelsea when Rush asked for a pic of Millie. That incident got retold in the telling (half the time it is attributed to 1992. That is, untill someone came up with the official transcript. Then Limbaugh's critics, rather than admit they were wrong about it, decided to change their story to 'the incident in question occured at a different time, in 1993'.).

(Speak of the devil, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

"On November 6, 1992, three days after the election, in reference to who was in and out at the White House, Limbaugh joked on air that he didn't know Bill Clinton had a pet dog, and held up a picture of Chelsea.[citation needed]"

One wishes that his critics would put their heads together and agree on the specific details of the lies they will tell about him.)

Also, the person who posted this (false) info, changed it from: "Rush asked: 'Did you know there was a white house dog?' and then supposedly HOLDS up a photo of chelsea. According to Rush's critics who occasionaly bring up this incident claimed he HELD UP the photo of Chelsea in his hand.

Someone on the internet went to Lexis Nexis to see a transcript, and found only the Nov. 1992 incident. There it is seen what Rush really said and did. For one, he did NOT hold up any photos. All photos were flashed on a video monitor. Clearly, the person who posted the phony info read the transcript and changed his story accordingly. He changed it from "held up a photo" to this: "He then pointed to a video monitor, which switched to a picture of Chelsea." He also changed the year of the incident to 1993 in order to make his objectional observations ("the joke would not have made sense if Limbaugh had not intended for Chelsea's photo to appear on screen, as the White House had no dog. (Buddy did not join the Clinton family until a few years later".) sound more reasonable and logical --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.194.0.90 ( talk • contribs) .

I guess I am not clear. Are you saying that the two incidents mentioned in the article are one in the same? -- Asbl 03:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. There are no two seperate incidents. The Nov. 1992 incident that I cite (with the transcript) is the one and only incident regarding this issue. The (false 1993) incident, that "1993" story GREW out of the original Nov. 1992 incident over the years. So far I can trace the false "1993" incident down to an innacurate column by Molly Ivins in 1993.

As the years have passed, details got changed in the retelling. So much so that when confronted with the transcript, some people (Rush's critics) rather than admit that they were giving out wrong details about the incident in question, would then turn around and claim (falsely) that the incident they were describing happened in a different episode in a different year. It happened to me a few times. I would be in argument with, well to put it delicately, someone who hated Rush. They pulled out the old (1993) incident saying it was in 1992. I pulled out the transcript showing what really happened in 1992. Rather than admit their mistake, would then insist claim that it happened in another year. One, after being confronted with the transcript tried to put the incident in July of 1993. Of course, Rush was not on the air in the month of July. He went off the air for the summertime. Another attempted to tell me that the incident occured in September of 1996. Of course, Rush's show went off the air for good in June 1996. One claimed he HEARD Rush do it on his radio show. Of course, the incident in question occured on Rush's tv show. Not his radio show. Another, I saw on a message board on the internet, claimed that Rush performed this "chelsea/dog joke" on his tv show at least once a week, every week. (I had to roll my eyes at that one. As a viewer who never missed an episode, I don't recall seeing it being done once, much less once a week every week. I sure as heck would have remembered that!).

It's like Mark Twain has said: "A Lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on"

Sorry, just your assertion that Molly Ivans and The Washington Post are inaccurate are not enough. This seems like original research to me, though if you can source it, it is certainly worth noting. -- Ausman 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

___________________

Removed again and I'll tell you why. The person who added that bit of phony (1993) incident, used Al Franken and his book as a source.

"Although Limbaugh has claimed that it was a technical error, as Al Franken documented in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, since the show was on a tape delay, if it truly was a technical error, it could have been corrected prior to airing of the show."

So, I went to look at that book, and yes, Franken notes in his book (in a chapter on Sean Hannity where he argues this very issue with Hannity) that Limbaugh claimed it was a technical error. Franken also noted that Rush blamed the behind the scenes tech crew for the foul up. Which is also true. Rush did call it a technical error and blamed it on the behind the scenes crew. But, BUT, Rush did this in 1992, not 1993.

Days after the 1992 incident:

Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET) November 10, 1992, Tuesday 11:15 AM

("Who's Sorry Now" is played and Rush points to himself)

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry. Let me tell you very quickly what happened last Friday night. There was a new in list and new out list that was published in the newspaper. The writer said in, cute kid in the White House; out, cute dog in the White House. Could we show the cute dog in the White House who's out, and they put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton back in the crew. And many of you people think that we did it on purpose to make a cheap comment on her appearance. And I'm terribly sorry. I don't--look, that takes no talent whatsoever and I have a lot of talent. I don't need to get laughs by commenting on people's looks, especially a young child who's done nothing wrong. I mean, she can't control the way she looks. And we really--we do not--we do not do that on this kind of show. So put a picture up of her now and so we can square this.

(Photo shown of Bill and Chelsea Clinton, who is making a sour face)

(Laughter and applause)

LIMBAUGH: All right. We're sorry. We didn't intend to hurt her feelings. We'll be back with our final segment right after this. Don't go away.

Wow. A "partial" transcript that can only be sourced to a Free Republic message board. Doesn't exactly conform to WP:RS. Not by a country mile. On the other hand, the article now has THREE separate sources verifying that Limbaugh called Chelsea "the White House dog." I don't know what's more sickening: Limbaugh attacking a young girl, or the freeper trolls who come here to (anonymously, of course) pretend the whole thing never happened.

What a disgrace. -- Eleemosynary 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is sourced also from The Washington Post[ [1]]. Sorry Allen3, you can't just remove this controversial topic without discussing it first here and at least trying to come to consensus. -- Ausman 05:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that proper sources are available to show what Limbaugh made the statement about there being a White house dog and that an image of Chelsea was displayed exist. This however is tangential to the real issue. It is the unsourced assertion that this was done intentionally by Limbaugh in an effort to criticize or denigrate that is the key problem with the addition. Limbaugh has stated that a mistake was made during the sequence. Based upon your comments on this talk page and at Talk:Rush Limbaugh it is clear that you do not agree with Limbaugh's explanation. There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with Limbaugh, his statement could have been nothing more than plausible deniability, but your personal analysis of the events does not constitute satisfactory evidence that Limbaugh was wrong in his explanation of his own actions and motives. Do you have any sources to support your assertion that Limbaugh was being untruthful in his explanation and made a deliberate attack against Chelsea? -- Allen3  ^talk 12:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Me, nor anyone else needs to attempt to analyze Limbaugh's motives, to include a quote from The Washington Post, which is considered a reliable source. To my knowledge, Limbaugh has never explained the incident in question after Nov 10, 1992 but if you have a reference for your statement that he has, I would love to see it. In any case, I think it is an important event (if nothing else, see all the comments here and in the Archives of the Talk:Rush Limbaugh) page and we should try to come up with a way to cite it on Wikipedia:Chelsea_Clinton that all parties can agree to. Chelsea Clinton was actually mentioned quite a few times on the Rush Limbaugh show. I have found six times using Lexis-Nexis and there are undoubtedly other incidents. -- Ausman 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The ball is in your court now Allen3. I am going to give you a week to come up with a proposed NPOV entry for this. If you continue to maintain that no mention whatsover is acceptable, then I will be forced to reluctantly conclude that you are not negotiating in good faith and I will ask that this topic be mediated. -- Ausman 01:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Eleemosynary reverted us back to the old version. I don't find this back and forth editing to be particularly useful, so I will try and come up with something that both sides find acceptable this weekend. Please try to work on the edit, rather than just deleting and restoring people. -- Ausman 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I note the Washington Post source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/inaug/players/chelsea.htm is a hearsay editorial account 3 years after the event. A good WP source would have reference a previous article dating from the time of the incident or be that timely news article. I note the Post and other papers do not hold the content of such editorials as having the same degree of authenticity as current event news. Simply put editorials are often fact checked by the author only if at all. In fact editorials can get pretty whack if they aren't by mainline recurring editors. Editorials are printed for discussion and human interest appeal not normally as a source of facts.

Tape delays don't usually allow "Correction" but they do allow elimination and substitution of commercial time or early show change over. Anything Rush aired was intentional. Yes he does spin doctor "incidents" but then he turns around makes it obvious that anyone falling for any spin doctoring is a fool. That is Rush, like many right wing commentators, uses his own show as a demonstration of what he says is pandemic in the left and moderate wing political statements.

Lets be honest Chelsea was NOT a good looking child. Would Rush mention that sort of thing? In a heartbeat. Its not PC but it was true and most everyone else was thinking it. Fortunately Chelsea has now learned to cosmetically work what she has until she is quite beautiful in an exotic way. 69.23.124.142 ( talk) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The important thing is that Rush never forced the Washington Post to print a timely retraction - not whether the event took place. That is how political reality is created. Yes everyone know the Washington Post has printed errors and even had some bad commentators and reporters with series of bad stories eventually uncovered. Such things happen in political charged newspapers. Yet the important thing is that the reality the Post described is POLITICAL reality -- unless someone had the clout and time to force a timely retraction.

PS the most ridiculous aspect of Wikipedia is that if someone watched the tapes and could cite which the air date and time within that tape that the incident occurred -- it would be rejected as a source as being original research. I can almost see that for watching them all and not finding the incident. But then the idea scientifically proving the absence of something (not the same as proving a hypothesis must be false) is sort of a ridiculous standard.

For scientific (versus political) realities, I do believe that Wikipedia should allow the challenging of a single source citation. If a fact is reliably true you can almost always find an independent second source, that is one that doesn't refer back to the first source for its info. Even in physics, experimental results are considered tentative until another source repeats approximately the same results. Math is the one field were you might settle for a second qualified source looking at the original work and validating it by simply saying "I see no problem with their work" (total abstraction all in a single "paper" unburden by real world issues).

69.23.124.142 ( talk) 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've eliminated the fact that she will be eligible to run for president in 2020 because I don't think it's relevant to anything. Is she planning on running for president? No. LaszloWalrus 02:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And also, the earliest she'd actually be eligiable would be 2016, when she's 36, so its not even supportive of the point the stat tries to make. -Fsotrain09 20:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite where Chelsea denies she will run for President. I think the status of this item is RUMOR -- regardless of public statements. Any one who had watched the approach of an election has seen people run who said they wouldn't and people who said they would decide not to do so. I don't think anyone will deny that Hillary Clinton if elected would like to see Chelsea succeed her similar to the Bush's. Now whether Chelsea wants to and mom has the capital to back her...well again it can be noted as a possibility and rumor but not denied nor affirmed until it is a done deal. 69.23.124.142 ( talk) 02:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Even in her late 20s, Chelsea was shielded from press criticism on grounds that she was not a politician. This held true even when, as in 2008, Chelsea actually campaigned for her mother. Yet Sarah Palin's daughter, only 17, was repeatedly mentioned (complete with photograph) on the front pages of newspapers and at the top of newscasts. This stunning example of a media double standard should be an integral part of this article on Chelsea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 ( talk) 22:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the photo of the Globe cover is used to illustrate that the Globe ran articles about Clinton in 1998, but I'm concerned that it has the effect of emphasizing the alcohol-abuse allegations themselves, since it's one of just four photos in the article. If those allegations didn't receive coverage by reliable sources, or are not important enough for the text of the article, then I don't think they should be mentioned via photo either. -- Allen 20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No response; removing. -- Allen 19:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No one takes the tabloids seriously, and it is used here to show that the Globe has not shown the respect of other media outlets. I dont think anyone is going to say Clinton is a drunk from this photo. Thank you-- David Foster 02:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tacky cover of Globe in the article. There's certainly no cover of National Enquirer shown at George W. Bush substance abuse controversy, even though he was on the cover recently after allegedly having been been "caught" drinking. This type of visual negativity in the bio shows poor taste. 69.61.246.160 09:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading that Chelsea had plastic surgery after she had been in college for a while. There was an article with a "before" and "after" picture, and, while I understand they would use the worst and best pictures they have of her, it really did look like she'd had some work done. Has that ever been verified? ID208 00:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rumor. Not true. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 18:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know if she is still guarded by Secret Service? If so when does it stop, Truman's duaghter is still alive is she guarded? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.61 ( talk) 02:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

According to the Secret Service article she is not pertected by the Secret Service, only former first ladies and Presidents are guarded and starting with President Clinton this ends after ten years.

So what is her job at the hedge fund Avenue Capital Group? Presumably she's not a mathematical modeler, since her degrees are in history and international relations. Does she help bring in new investors? Eclecticos 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Stanford does not award highest honors; instead, they give out "distinction," I believe to the top 10 or 15% of the class. HTH.

What degree did she get from Oxford? -- Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 23:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I upgraded the all of the citations. I removed one blog source, it was a third cite for a statement, so wasn't really needed anyway. The Franken thing could use a citation with page number there. The whole paragraph about Mark Lasry is original research as it is currently sourced. Were there any news reports on his contributions? Newsmeat is a good primary source, but there needs to be a secondary source for that too. The last sentence about Morgan Stanley also needs a secondary observer about it being a "coincidence". - Crockspot 02:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been a month, so I removed the whole Morgan Stanley paragraph. There were no sources cited except for one primary source. Find secondary sources making all of these observations before restoring. - Crockspot 15:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a random list of trivia, especially unsourced and unverifiable material, such as Chelsea Clinton's appearance in an alleged, non-notable conservative comic book. For those reasons, I have removed a sentence from this article. I will remove it again once more if it is reverted. Bearian 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The neighborhood north of it, Hell's Kitchen, has been referred to as Clinton by real estate agents attempting to avoid the neighborhood's traditionally poor image.

What does this sentence mean? I've read it four times and still can't figure out what's being said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.251.95 ( talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it means that instead of referring to the neighborhood as "Hell's Kitchen" (it's actual name) real estate agents now tell prospective clients that the area is called "Clinton". Personally, I'd prefer to live in historic "Hell's Kitchen" rather than a non-existent "Clinton". 75.164.160.112 ( talk) 08:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)dwargo

Yes, the area is called Clinton - having nothing whatsoever to do with Chelsea or any other member of her family of course. It's just an historic name for the area abutting, yes, Chelsea, hence Chelsea-Clinton. Why are we talking about this here? Tvoz | talk 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a collection of jokes and comments made about her, because of who her parents are. Besides being mostly in bad taste the whole thing is kind of trivial. Does it tell us anything about Chelsea herself? Borock ( talk) 14:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

as a WP:BLP, there's a good argument that these tasteless jokes should probably be left out. they can likely be found at linked-to WP articles, so there's no need for inclusion here. Anastrophe ( talk) 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I went ahead and took out the whole section. It seems to me that people will visit this article to find out some info on her herself, not a list of jokes and insults. They can go someplace else for that. Borock ( talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of big white spaces in the article. I didn't see anything in the edit screen that would help. Borock ( talk) 04:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea spoke to a Dallas audience today. Her introducer said she attended Stanford with an initial major in Chemistry before switching to History, as per this article; Chelsea responded that this was incorrect, and not to believe everything one reads. However, the announcer was fumbling a bit. Is this information on Chelsea's course of majors correct? 2/20/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.198.73 ( talk) 21:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

According to First Lady of the United States, Chelsea Clinton filled in for Hillary Clinton in this role at some point. It's not mentioned here in this article, though, and I know nothing about it. Should this article be in Category:U.S. First Ladies? Bryan 07:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe it should not. A period of 17 days does not warrant a listing in a category with some of the others. Seems to be more of a "misc trivia" than anything else Nick Catalano 08:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It should be mentioned on this discussion page, though, that "First Lady," is a style, not an office, title, rank, or station; the official title is "White House Hostess." The above referenced article cites many Presidential wives who have held the Hostess role, but also daughters and friends of Presidents. Also, doubtless, Chelsea attended functions in her own right, and thus served as a Hostess. I don't think the 17 day limitation is a big deal here....I would like to know more about her life post White House (i.e. how well did she do at University? Life at McKinsey?) Isotopephd 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton wrote a piece for Talk magazine about her experiences in New York City on Sept. 11. Here are some quotes:

"... I even resent the theory that America's arrogance, even indirectly, led to the attacks".

"I was expounding on the detriments of Bush's tax cut...."

"I stopped berating the tax cut and started praying that the president would rise to lead us. And I thanked God my mother was a senator representing New York ..."

Would it be appropriate to add here a mention of the extremely crass "White House Dog" joke Rush Limbaugh pulled on his TV show? I believe she was aged 13 at the time.

Short answer: no. -- Nlu 05:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the Rush Limbaugh article, but those editors have sent it down the memory hole. You can read their discussions about it at Talk:Rush_Limbaugh/Archive1. Wasted Time R 13:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The claim that the "joke" was supposedly an error cannot be taken at face value. The show was aired several hours after it taped. Had it really been an error, he would have removed it from the airing of the show. -- Asbl 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope. In order to take something out of the program, something would have had to be put in to replace it. And how much of the error do they take out? A couple seconds? The entire segment? Rush did not do retakes and the show was aired only a matter of hours after it was taped. There was NO time to take anything out. Rush's show was aired as is. Mistakes and all. A light blows. It stayed. Flies flying around the studio, it stayed. The behind the scenes guy who made this mistake, thiswasnot his first, but his third and worst one. He was fired, and he went on to produce a short lived tv talk show.

The problem with such a "theory" is that without the picture of Chelsea, there's no joke. Rush says "White House dog", and he was supposed to show a picture of...what, exactly? -- 24.184.72.20 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if any of you caught this in the news, but Chelsea responded defensively to a question about the Monica Lewinsky scandal . A college student who is a reporter for his school's newspaper wanted an opinion on "on the criticism of her mother that how she handled the Lewinsky scandal might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president." Chelsea replied "Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business". Is this encyclopedic enough to be added to the article? Here are the numerous news articles that cover the incident. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 04:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

not particularly. maybe if it's still news in a month. otherwise, it's just currentism and conflating wikipedia with wikinews. Anastrophe ( talk) 05:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

agreed that it is not worthy. If we follow her every move in an encyclopedia, we are more like a papparazipedia. Isaacsf ( talk) 10:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The opening of this article contains a statement that she no longer eats red meat. I think this statement should be removed or at least moved to a different section of the article. Any thoughts? JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but couldn't you have waited a bit for some consensus instead of deleting the remark wholesale? I think it would be a bit more neighborly to move it to an appropriate section. Isaacsf ( talk) 05:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the material about Clinton becoming a vegetarian at age 11 in the opening of the article because the article arranges the events of Clinton's life in chronological order, and the only events prior to her "Teenager at the White House" stage are listed in the opening. I propose to create a section entitled "Early Years", to precede the "Teenager at the White House" section, and move the events of her early years into it. Wideangle ( talk) 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm sorry. I should have waited to hear from other people before removing it. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

is this really notable? Anastrophe ( talk) 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's part of being a precocious child. I haven't known many people who have skipped a grade, so I consider it notable. Wideangle ( talk) 00:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the controversy over Chelsea's and Hilary's different versions of the story of Chelsea's September 11, 2001 experience? http://www.wnyc.org/blog/lehrer/archives/000064.html - Avitor 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Two easy answers: because this is an article about Chelsea, not Hillary, and because that info is nearly 4 years old and not especially encyclopedic. The "controversy" - to there degree there even is any - goes with Hillary, not Chelsea. There are additional problems, but these are enough to keep it out of the article, IMHO. Isaacsf ( talk) 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This vandalism is getting out of hand (poor Chelsea). I accordingly requested protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This article seems very poor to me. There are quite a few uncited facts which appear to be completely superfluous and irrelevant. I removed the one about Rush's comments, which is totally irrelevant.

Editors should remember that our facts need to be cited, and information needs to be relevant. This article looks more like a rumor mill in places rather than biography of a living person. Vir4030 ( talk) 12:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please could this be explained? In some countries that how we all vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article have a category attached to it a called "Canadian Americans"? How does this apply?-- InaMaka ( talk) 21:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this under the Cape Cod and the Islands Wikiproject? I don't see any mention of it or of Massachusetts in this article. Does she live there now? Midtempo-abg ( talk) 01:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove the line about how she uses the word immunizations? It's a really lame example, and I think skipping a grade demonstrates a lot better how bright she was. And honestly it makes sense that her parents would use the word immunizations with her and not "shots" since it isn't as frightening. It's simply the word she knew for it, not a sign of her maturity. 97.127.212.207 ( talk) 17:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The line is properly cited and should remain. Caster33 ( talk) 00:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The article says the song "Chelsea Morning" inspited her name but Mrs.Clinton also said she was named after the Chelsea part of London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.1.231 ( talk) 01:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have removed it and replaced it with the following text: Clinton excelled in academics (a family friend described her as a precocious child)"[3] While in elementary school, Clinton skipped the third grade.[4] Still a bit over the top but mode in line with reality. Unidentified family friends are hardly an appropriate source for high IQ and a magazine that specializes in celebrity gossip is hardly a reliable source for anything. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 03:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The part about the Shuster reporter being suspended has a crap citation. Eliminate it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.62.54 ( talk) 16:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton's Engagement Was Announced On November 22,2009,Please Put That Date In Her Biography. 67.162.29.162 ( talk) 15:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I put in a NY Times reference to the subject's (at this point future) father-in-law having been convicted of fraud and doing federal time.

It was deleted as "tangential" ... but I'm putting it back.

If the subject's father-in-law's history as a congressman is relevant, then so is his ironic history as a convicted fraudster. It's only fair to take the bad with the good.

It's certainly historically significant that the president and Secy of State's daughter is marrying the son of a man who served time in prison for fraud.

It's at least as relevant to the topic as the mention of who will be the subject's husband's uncle (already mentioned in the same sentence).

BTW... I tried to say it in as unbiased a way as possible.

John2510 ( talk) 16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this does not belong here - it is amply covered in the bluelinked article about his father. This is a bio of her life, not his. (And I also removed reference to his uncle whic is also not appropriate here.) Tvoz/ talk 05:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I put it back. Why is it relevant who her father-in-law is? If it's relevant that he was a congressman, then it's relevant that he's a felon. The deletion of this legitimaate reference is bordering on vandalism. John2510 ( talk) 14:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the article; it's just an attempt at sleaze-by-association grubbery. Jeb Bush's wife getting caught lying to avoid customs duties, while he was governor, isn't mentioned in his article, for example, and this is far less relevant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason the current page describes both her new in-laws as former "Democrat" congressmen? The proper term is "Democratic"; "Democrat" as an adjective is used primarily by partisan Republicans as a perjorative. 162.96.105.84 ( talk) 16:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

yes on "Democratic", no on felon/ Hullabaloo is right - this is not acceptable for her bio. Tvoz/ talk 16:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"... it's just an attempt at sleaze-by-association grubbery." No more than that he's a former congressman is an attempt at "credential-by-association" grubbery. A brief mention of her in-laws historical significance is appropriate. Somebody shortened my entry to "convicted fraudster." That seems like an appropriate change. If we're going to drop the convict reference, we ought to drop any reference to her father-in-law's "credentials" at all and just mention his name with a link. I think both are equally relevant and should remain. I don't know anything about the Bush page referenced. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, if she was convicted and did federal time... I'm guessing it would have made the page. 173.79.190.105 ( talk) 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This has reached the point of vandalism of a valid entry about the father-in-law's signficiant history. Do we want to agree to remove any reference to the in-law's credentials... and just link to the names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop accusing editors of vandalism when this is obviously not that - valid arguments are presented here on the talk page about why this information does not belong in Chelsea Clinton's biography. Feel free to discuss, but please cool it with the accusations. Thank you. Tvoz/ talk 17:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No one has given any reason why the positive reference belongs but the negative (and more ironic) one does not. I've posted this dispute on the living person's bio discussions page for broader discussion. John2510 ( talk) 17:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The reasons are WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Acronyms aren't reasons... and those pages simply don't support the biased referencing. John2510 ( talk) 23:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're not interested in reviewing those articles, or asking questions about them, then don't expect your viewpoint to be considered in our consensus-making. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how "Democratic congressman" is a necessarily positive reference - in many circles I assure you it is not. In fact it is merely an identifier, the reason for Edward Mezvinsky's own separate biography which goes into detail about all of his life, with its twists and turns. Even there his primary identification is as a former Congressman - that is the way he should be identified here as well. Tvoz/ talk 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that "former Congressman" looks fine, in the scope of this bio. -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 22:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just add "both former members of Congress" after the two parents' names? I see no need to get into which states they represented in this bio. Also "He attended..." is ambiguous after the mention of the father. I would suggest "Marc attended..." instead.-- agr ( talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Avenue Capital Group indicates Chelsea has moved on to further study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.7.108 ( talk) 01:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think the article should remain "as is" until a reliable source is cited? Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 02:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we cut some of the trivia in this article (she loved ping pong as a kid) and tighten the whole thing up to make it an encyclopedia article? I know there's not a lot of interesting, encyclopedic material to publish about Chelsea (she's young and has yet to make her mark in the world) but does the article have to be unencyclopedically "stretched" with trivia as meatloaf is with cracker crumbs and oatmeal? Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 06:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Has she changed her name as a result of her marriage? Alphaboi867 ( talk) 06:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

When a reliable source reports this, it will no doubt appear in our article. Not our job to speculate. Tvoz/ talk 07:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree and further add that reliable sources are currently saying that this is yet unknown. My76 Strat 07:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, someone who has automatic editing privileges has changed the name and listed the change as "minor". Can anything be done about that? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 ( talk) 15:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it not the standard custom in the USA for a wife to take her husbands family name? Why would we assume that she would not? Even if she was one of the "odd balls" to not do so, she would still be refered to as Mrs. her husband's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.228.111 ( talk) 14:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not as common as it once was--women often choose to keep their birth surname--and to the extent that adopting the husband's surname is is a common practice, there is no need to mention it in this article unless we have reliable sources that say what choice has been made by Ms. Clinton.-- agr ( talk) 16:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not remotely common enough to presume that she would change her name, and anyone who referred to Chelsea Clinton as Chelsea Mezvinsky would be an idiot. Propaniac ( talk) 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If she doesn't take her husband's name, many may assume they are living together or that Wikipedia is slow to upgrade articles. Perhaps the first sentence should read Chelsea Victoria Clinton (Mezvinsky) or Chelsea Victoria (Clinton) Mezvinsky. Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 02:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We wait for reliable sources, we do not lead the world to show the "right way". I think that people likely to know about Chelsea Clinton are a little more sophisticated these days, and don't need us to point out that a marriage may involve a name change; they would also recognize the issue as trivia. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If it all helps, the relevant page naming guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), specifically WP:NCP#Multiple and changed surnames and WP:NCP#Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens. The point is that Wikipedia favors the most common name used in reliable sources – not the current married name or the current legal name. If most reliable sources still use "Chelsea Clinton", then that should be the article's name.

However, the first sentence of the article is treated totally different, and is outlined on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names. There, we can still use the most current legal or married name, like "Chelsea Victoria (Clinton) Mezvinsky", "Chelsea Mezvinsky (née Clinton)", "Chelsea Mezvinsky, better known by her birth name Chelsea Clinton" or a variation thereof. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 04:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand why she would want to keep her father's name. Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 05:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand why you're so eager to assign her her father-in-law's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 ( talk) 13:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

← It is utterly irrelevant whether anyone here thinks she should or should not change her name - the only thing that matters is whether reliable sources report that she has or has not done so. This talk page is not for discussing personal opinions about the subject of the biography (or her father), it is to discuss improvements to the article. At present, no one has come forward with any reliable source saying she is taking her husband's name, and since we are not in the 19th century we do not automatically assume that she changed her name. If it is reliably reported that she has, we'll change it. If it is not so reported, we don't change it here. And in a related point, we don't add her husband's name to the lead sentence of the article because that is not where her notability derives from. It is wholly out of place as the lead, so please stop putting it there. Tvoz/ talk 06:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• If have no wiki reliable statement that she has changed her name then we do not change it in the article, easy peasy. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have updated her last name, per stating the obivous - she's married and as such her last name would change. (Yes I know, it could be her last name - her husband's last name or just her husbands last name ) either way, her last name is no longer "Clinton". To change her last name back to Clinton would be incorrect. Kind of a catch-22, it's not Clinton, so we can't her that or it's technically BLP, we don't know how she's going to state her married name, so we can't just have a married last name, so I updated to include both her madien last name and husband's last name. That way, we have references for "Clinton" and at the same time acknowledge that it's no longer her last name (again, stating the obvious). KoshVorlon Naluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand American things, changing one's name is not something that is necessarily done with marriage. It is merely a custom that some people follow. How do you know her name is no longer Clinton? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

[copied from my user talk page to consolidate discussion]
-- Chelsea Clinton, redux --
Tvoz, I understand your desire to keep Chelsea's entry in compliance with Wikipeda (and by extension, as factual as it can be ) calling her "Chelsea Clinton" is not accurate anymore. She's married, and per common knowledge, she's got a new last name now. No, we don't know if it's just her husband's last name or if it's her madien last name - her husband's last name, but her last name has changed, no citation is needed for it, it's common knowledge just like it's common knowledge that she's a female. We can't call her "Clinton" anymore, it would technically violate BLP as it's no longer accurate, but neither is a reference available for her official married last name, but both last names could be included that way, we have a reference for her maiden name and acknowledge the RS that show she was married by using her husbands last name (again, per common knowledge). I did update her page to reflect this. Think about blp before you change it again. KoshVorlon Naluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kosh, I could not disagree with you more. First we don't edit by "common knowledge" regarding things like peoples' names - we edit by sources. And in fact it is not common knowledge that when a woman marries her name automatically changes. In fact, in New York State where she - and I, 34 years ago - was married, the law is that one's name is what one uses - if you marry and start using your husband's name, consistently, it is your name, but you have to go through steps to have your legal documents changed to that new name. If you marry and do not change your driver's license, passport, etc., and if you consistently continue to use your birth name (please, spare me the idiotic word "maiden" when we're talking about a 30 year old woman), that is your name. You do not have to file any papers to retain your name - it is your name. You do not have to have it legally changed "back" - you just keep using your name, just like the man does. Heavens. Even the IRS understands this correctly. We simply do not know what Chelsea Clinton has decided about her name - we could guess that as her mother before her until Arkansas politics intervened, she is a modern woman who will keep her name, but we're also not in the business of guessing. So I vehemently oppose making this change here until we see in reliable sources that she has chosen to take her husband's name, or a version of it or something else entirely. You do not know if she is now calling herself Chelsea Clinton, Chelsea Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton-Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky, or Chelsea Smith. So you are being presumptuous, at present, in making the change - and, I might add, a bit offensive, although you probably didn't intend that.

Secondly, invoking BLP is ridiculous. Do you actually understand what BLP policy is about? Do you actually think that it is defamatory to leave a woman's name as her original name until we hear otherwise? In some circles it might be considered defamatory to assume that she changed her name - but I am not saying that either. I am saying that with full knowledge and understanding of BLP policy, this has nothing at all to do with it, and I reject the argument. So, with all respect, her name reinstated as her name is correct. I will be glad to change it if and when we know that she has changed it - she decides her name, not you, not me, not Wikipedia.

Thanks for leaving me a note, however, and I will be happy to discuss this with you and anyone else - I'll copy this to the article talk page where it will get a wider audience. Tvoz/ talk 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

God, where do you people come from who think that all women even in the year 2010 automatically change their names when they get married? Certainly it's not the same place as Ms. Clinton. Propaniac ( talk) 19:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot understand why Chelsea's gluten allergy warrants mention here. Many people have allergies. Chelsea's is nothing extraordinary - unless she's "the face" of gluten allergies in America, or her allergy is the subject of a ground breaking study, or it mysteriously immobilizes her for weeks at a time, or it's noteworthy for some eye-popping reason. Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 06:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think people are grasping for any known fact on a young celebrity who has maintained a very private personal life, and whose ultimate notoriety remains to be seen. She's the daughter of a president and seems like a nice, bright kid... but writing a bio without grasping for straws is a challenge. John2510 ( talk) 04:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't support the addition in this edit by Suzanne2009NYC, I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that it is too much un-encyclopedic discussion of rumor/speculation, long after the factual outcome has been established, and it appears to me to be excessive bla bla with no long term notability or informative educational value. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I sent the matter to ANI. Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There may be a kernel or two of infomation in the addition that might still be relevant (e.g., that her father also attended Oxford, but in contrast on a Rhodes Scholarship - maybe), but overall I'd have to agree with HW and Off2Riorob that the level of detail about long ago speculation that didn't come to pass - and as far as I recall and have seen did not have any real impact on her life - is excessive. Tvoz/ talk 17:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think much of the recent material added to the Oxford section is over the top and out of proportion to the rest of the article in both length and level of detail and insignificance to her life story. That she wore a Versace pantsuit to a couture show? The characterization that she was "adjusting poorly" to life in Britain, which the provided quote does not particularly speak to? This was a couple of years of her life, yet has been given an awful lot of weight. The "expand" tag is up there, so maybe Susanne is planning to expand the other sections accordingly, but right now I am not comfortable at all with the way this is written. I have to add, also, that much of the recent editing seems to be tinged with a sarcastic attitude toward her, with the choice of words and what appears to be an insistence on including anything negative that is out there, out of proportion in my opinion, perhaps in an attempt to provide balance - but i think that;s not really what we mean by balance and undue weight. We are supposed to edit with a neutral point of view - but that doesn't mean we add one negative comment for every positive one, or anything like that. What do other editors think about this section? Tvoz/ talk 22:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found at least one other comment a bit odd; the same editor returned a statement about the price of Mezvinsky's apartment a few years back as showing the couple would have an "opulent lifestyle" -- showing at best, I think, a lack of familiarity with the outlandishness of Lower Manhattan real estate prices. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 01:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This section was created from models in Angelina Jolie and other FA articles. Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 01:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions that Clinton is a vegetarian and has her listed under that category, but this article says she's been a vegan since she was a teenager. I've seen mentions of this elsewhere; if reported in a few other reliable sources she should probably be moved to the "American vegans" category. -- Gloriamarie ( talk) 18:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Validation: I can validate much of the public perception of Chelsea Clinton as a vegetarian and the 'for animals' part. I'd suggest that childhood friends could be interviewed to address this question with greater authenticity than a collection of press clippings, since Chelsea's childhood was so heavily protected by her parents. She did attend a Quaker academy (the Sidwell Friends School), and the White House ordered Boca Burgers throughout the Clinton years in the Presidency, and Mrs. Clinton had called in Dr. Dean Ornish and vegan chef Ron Pickarski to consult on White House food early in the first Clinton years. MaynardClark ( talk) 23:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we (or someone) add a tag "American vegans"? MaynardClark ( talk) 23:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of "First Daughters" have been vegetarian: Amy Carter Patti Reagan-Davis Chelsea Clinton

and Walter Mondale's daughter was (reportedly) a weight-lifter, I recall seeing on a muscle magazine once. MaynardClark ( talk) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This (with reference) should be put in "personal life" section. See my comment on Organization of Sections Harel ( talk) 00:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of removing the banner. The section appears as complete as it needs to be. Any objections to the removal? Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 23:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How about paring this almost embarrassingly excessive, tabloid-esque section down to a sentence or two? I mean, it's a SINGLE day in her life. Geez. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 10:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly needs trimming, the article has recently been excessively bloated with valueless fluff. Off2riorob ( talk) 10:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That is much better Jake. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to explain why I made my edits - this is really not a big deal, but the NY Times article entitled "Chelsea Clinton Says She Is Expecting" accurately reported what she actually said: "Marc and I are very excited that we have our first child arriving later this year." The other source given was a weaker source, a Washington Post blog, which was the one taking journalistic liberties, not me. Also, the edit ("she was pregnant") is grammatically awkward and could be misinterpreted as saying she no longer is which eventually will be the case, but not now. So that is why I think we should not put words into her mouth, even though they obviously are true, and follow the better source. I don't really have any problem with saying she is pregnant, but think "she and her husband Marc were expecting their first child" is what she announced and what the better source, the Times, accurately reported, so what we should say. It's not clear to me why the wording was repeatedly changed - maybe the source I provided wasn't looked at. Tvoz/ talk 06:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

See the following regarding releasing the name of the baby: [3]. More to come shortly. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

See [4]

See [5].

See WP:BLPNAME.

-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand this conversation, the new baby's name is released ALL over the internet in newspaper publications at this point. Why is it not on the wikipedia article? The links provided by Winkelvi are primarily discussions about other people with more private family lives. Jooojay ( talk) 01:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A baby of celebrities is notable for one thing: being born. That's not enough to make a non-notable minor child notable. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, a newspaper, or a magazine, it's an encyclopedia. We have a responsibility to raise the bar, not lower it. Adding the name of a non-notable minor child doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, therefore, it doesn't belong. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Examples cited do not support arguments for suppression of the Chelsea's daughter's name because in this case the name was announced by the parents -- not the tabloids. Here is a Washington Post article with the baby's name in the title. How hot is the sun? ( talk) 01:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Examples cited most certainly do support keeping the name out. I guess you need to read them again. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi is correct—it's standard that details of children are not included as the details are unimportant news-of-the-day space fillers. Gushing over the sex, name and birth-weight of a baby is fine in general, but it has no encyclopedic value. There are exceptions for cases like Barack Obama where even the family dog may be named, but the general rule is that interesting but unimportant details such as address, phone number, names of children are not included. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing the name is utterly wrong. The name was released by the parents, has been widely reported in top-notch reliable sources, and is in no way an invasion of anyone's privacy. This is a misinterpretation of BLPNAME. Further, it can be said that it does contribute to readers' understanding of the subject of the bio, in the choice of middle and last names - there has been much press coverage and disquisitions about the choices made by the baby's grandmother and mother regarding their surnames, and how Clinton and Mezvinsky decided to name their child is notable in that context. - this isn't "gushing". There are no relevant examples or policy supporting its removal. Specifically: example 1 above is about an unnotable list of controversial celebrity baby names,which has nothing at all to do with this; example 2 above is about baby names that were not released by the parents, irrelevant here; and example 3 refers to material that is not well-sourced and is specifically directed at material that might be considered defamatory, again irrelevant here. None of these arguments have anything to do with the subject at hand. And finally, indeed this is an encyclopedia, and as has been pointed out elsewhere, an encyclopedia biography should include information like names of children - which you will find everywhere here. I have no idea what bar is being referred to as needing to be raised. This information is appropriate to be included and consistent with Wikipedia biography style. See, for example, Jenna Bush, Caroline Kennedy, Susan Ford, Amy Carter, Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, Julie Nixon Eisenhower - to name several President's daughters with articles here naming their children. And please don't cite WP:OSE because it's also irrelevant to this. This is unsupportable and ridiculous, and without consensus, and the name needs to be reinstated.. Tvoz/ talk 03:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's had consensus over and over at various articles as well as the BLP Noticeboard. Names and other identifying information on non-notable minor children are to be left out of articles. Especially the names and identifying info on babies (who have done nothing notable other than being born -- one "notable" event does not a notable individual make in Wikipedia). The name and birth date stay out. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The date is an entirely different matter - that is usually omitted primarily for privacy concerns. You are quite wrong about consensus here, and didn't bother to comment on the contradicting articles cited above, among dozens of other articles that list the names of offspring. You are the one edit warring, by the way - BLP policy refers to removal of damaging material - it does not give you leave to unilaterally decide that you don't like having an offspring name listed and repeatedly take it out. Making unilateral decisions is not the way things work here, as you well know. By the way, as you also ought to know, notability guidelines are referring to the creation of articles about an individual, not the inclusion of facts in another one. I think you need to reread both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP - BLP is about including defamatory or damaging material that is unsourced. It is not a reason to leave off a well-sourced fact that is consistent with our biographies all across the encyclopedia. Tvoz/ talk 05:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi refers to the "we" in the decision making process. I want to see the link to the exact conversation thread regarding the debate over the Chelsea Clinton baby name. Otherwise like all other Wikipedia things, no consensus was reach at this point. Two editors opinion on how to read the historical context of citation is not consensus, especially since it is not exactly the same scenario. I would also like to point out, almost every politician has their children named in their Wikipedia articles. Jooojay ( talk) 05:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Any of you are welcome to take this to the BLP Noticeboard. Until then, because this is a BLP article and policy is clear (as well as the consensus in numerous previous discussions on this very subject), the name and all other identifying info should stay out. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's no longer being discussed there. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

\ Are you really serious? Names of children of notable people are usually reported in their bios, if there is coverage about them in reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Prove it. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The baby name issue is no longer being discussed because a decision made by consensus, the childs name in this article or articles like this did not violate WP:BLPNAME or any other rule. Jooojay ( talk) 19:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

( edit conflict × HiLo48) This is not a productive line. It is certainly commonly done, so long as some editor takes an interest in "encyclopedic completeness". The more famous the person, the more likely this happens. As an example, the children of Isaac Asimov are named. No footnoted citation is provided, but this isn't a big deal: Asimov certainly named them in his writings frequently, and there are chapter long biographies of Asimov, and obituaries, and the like (and there is no requirement to footnote sources), and one of the children made the news for reasons other than "child of somebody famous". No details about the the children's personal lives are provided, you'll have to use Google for that. Similarly, the daughter of Beyoncé is named. No one is gnashing their teeth over whether "Blue Ivy Carter" is going to wish to distance herself down the road from her distinctive name, her parents, her baby cries being recorded and publicized without her consent, and so on and so on. Because it's absolutely ludicrous to do so. Choor monster ( talk) 19:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus was not reached, nor was it actually sought. The discussion was closed with no consensus or decision noted; the BLP MOS policy per BLPNAME stands. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus only applies to people discussing actual policy, not getting it all wrong. You were blatantly misapplying WP:BLP1E and the like, and when this was explained to you, you responded with WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. WP:BLPNAME does not apply here either, as I explained carefully to HiLo48 just as the discussion was closed.

The closing was certainly appropriate: two editors getting it wrong and then several others just jumping in wondering what possible issues there could be. Choor monster ( talk) 20:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please stop the nonsensical application of policies? Enough already. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation: "Can you please stop the application of policies that don't support my case."

There was no consensus in the other discussion. The closing comment was WP:DROPTHESTICK. I don't think it was very helpful. It wasn't obvious who was meant to drop the stick. Maybe all of us. But I had certainly been quoting relevant policy. The common response was "But that doesn't apply here", when I had clearly demonstrated that it did. Then there's the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, repeated above, with no evidence. We know that has no value. Action needs to be evaluated against policy on every occasion. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.

• Actually, CCM is not being "discussed" at all, let alone in terms of a single event. She is mentioned, being a highly relevant bit of her mother's bio. I believe this is different enough to matter, but if not, note that it merely says "Caution should be applied". Not, do not name.

When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

• Totally irrelevant here. Even so, in such an extreme case, policy is merely "it is often preferable to omit it", not obligatory policy.

When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

• This is just a weight issue, but apply WP:SNOW: her name will get more than a "brief appearance" over time. It will appear again and again.

Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

• The daughter is of course directly involved in the article's topic.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

• A presumption is something to apply when you otherwise do not know what the situation is. In this case, we absolutely know what the situation is regarding privacy of the name: it does not exist whatsover. The parents and grandparents have made their decision, and this decision has been very widely reported. Had there been no reports, or just one or two minor reports, we'd be obligated to make the presumption in favor of privacy. But as I mentioned, this does not apply in this situation.

The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

• That's right, the name may certainly appear. It boils down, once all the BLP concerns are properly satisfied, to editorial discretion. If you are claiming this sentence from policy is relevant, you are agreeing that there are no BLP issues.

However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

• They are properly sourced.

Choor monster ( talk) 21:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU CHOOR MONSTER! Snuggums ( talk / edits) 21:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with some of your interpretation. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone start an RfC for Christs sake. Two kinds of pork ^Makin' _Bacon 23:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need one for this minutiae? I don't think so. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there much difference between minutiae and trivia? HiLo48 ( talk) 01:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Minutia can apply to tangible things (like the tiny spots on the back of her head). Trivia's just for info (like how she has tiny spots on the back of her head). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to, but it seems like the path of least resistance to come up with a consensus on this issue. Two kinds of pork ^Makin' _Bacon 03:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We do not need an RFC on this - it is a waste of time. It's been discussed here, it's been discussed at BLPN, and it is blatantly obvious if anyone bothers to read this encyclopedia or has worked on almost any BLP here that we include well-sourced names of children. This is tendentious, bullying, and a gross misinterpretation of policy. There is nothing in this information that the subject of this BLP could possibly object to, as she is the one who released the name to the public on Twitter, as reported in the highest quality sources possible. We had more than one citation originally to try to stave off this nonsense - someone removed the second one, but we could have posted dozens of excellent sources. Dozens. I am not going to waste my time to satisfy a few editors who like to disrupt. There is no policy violation and no consensus among the editors of this page to not include relevant, sourced material. Enough. Open the page, please, and censor the people who keep removing it on bogus grounds. Tvoz/ talk 06:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have fully protected this article so that a consensus can be worked out. Please discuss this at the relevant WP:BLPN listing. Let me know if a consensus is reached that all will adhere to, if you want the protection lifted. If protection expires and there is no resolution I would be perfectly happy to block anybody who adds or removes the disputed material. I would obviously rather it did not come to that. -- John ( talk) 18:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have the impression that a consensus has been reached, that some editors don't want to admit that a consensus has been reached, but nevertheless, there was no edit-warring after the previous protection expired. You may have looked quickly over the Edit History and seen numerous reverts in a row earlier today, but that was actually a different dispute, unrelated to BLP, and it was completely, amicably resolved, as per my explanation in the previous section of this talk page. Choor monster ( talk) 19:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@ John:Agree. There is no editwarring at this point and consensus is obvious. The last revert by Choor monster of my mistaken edit was correct. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I don't see any edit-warring happening recently, and there's a pretty clear consensus--as well as VAST precedent--that goes in one direction. LHM ^{ask me a question} 19:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

While there is no edit warring currently, there is no consensus on this nor is there "vast precedent" in just one direction. This will likely need to go to a higher level as there is no agreement/consensus possible at this point. Bullying and rude/uncivil behavor doesn't make for consensus. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop flogging a dead horse. That's not "rude" or uncivil, but there is a point in which you need to stop. There is no "higher level" BTW. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:CONSENSUS distinctly does not require unanimity. As Cwobeel said, please stop beating this dead horse. Consensus, precedent, and the reliable sources are all aligned against your view, Winkelvi. LHM ^{ask me a question} 20:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• • The "consensus" I was referring to was regarding the discussion regarding BLP on BLPN. That discussion is essentially dead. However, there is a second meaning of "consensus": what ought to be in this article, and that discussion hasn't actually happened yet, because we've been having the first discussion. There could be other reasons to agree to leave the name out. In fact, some of the editors over on BLPN have been trying all sorts of arguments on BLPN about why the name doesn't belong, with many arguments that have nothing to do with BLP policy. These are distinct questions, and mixing them together is quite unhelpful, and doing so on BLPN is simply annoying. Choor monster ( talk) 22:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this matter. There is much abuse (see dead horse comment above), misrepresentation and lying. Oh, and being annoyed, which I have never seen mentioned in policy. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is consensus (though not unanimity, which isn't required) it's just that you disagree with it, and wish there wasn't. As for "much abuse", that's not true--unless you count people proving that you're wrong as "much abuse." LHM ^{ask me a question} 23:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I and others, disagree with you, on both matters. Consensus is achieved by high quality argument. I have already pointed at the dead horse comment above. Such comments never help. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you and ONE other person disagree with myself and MANY other editors at BLPN. Please stop misrepresenting that discussion. And you DO keep beating this dead horse, which is simply a turn-of-phrase, and in no way a personal insult. An example of a REAL personal insult might be, say, repeatedly accusing someone of lying, when you know they aren't doing so. LHM ^{ask me a question} 00:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a good thing nobody did that then, isn't it? HiLo48 ( talk) 00:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As you well know, you've done it multiple times during this discussion. And then you complain about "much abuse." It would be humorous if it weren't son tendentious. LHM ^{ask me a question} 00:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I said you lied. You did. That's a very different thing. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I participated in proving your policy claims absolutely incorrect. You're mad about that, so you continually insist that I'm "lying." LHM ^{ask me a question} 00:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Go back to the point where I made that accusation. Discuss it in that context. I was a little "mad" that someone should resort to such appalling misrepresentation, even though I find that those who disagree with me seem to do it often. I'm not mad now. I just know what makes sense, and am disappointed to find people so reluctant to properly discuss things here. Too many seem to think that making an absolute statement in complete contradiction and without mention of some points that others have made is good debating technique. It's not. It's just confrontational, and rarely leads to consensus. That's why we have no consensus on this matter. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

People have tried to explain to you how your interpretation of BLP regarding the names of famous people's children is incorrect. But you simply refuse to listen to any reason on the subject. 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithistman ( talk • contribs)

I'm trying hard to think how "you simply refuse to listen to any reason" is not at least the tiniest bit personal and abusive. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

← John, may I ask what prompted you to protect this page again? There was no edit warring after it re-opened, just an exchange about a minor edit to the infobox which was withdrawn when the reasoning for the revert was stated. There most certainly is consensus here on the matter of keeping the name in the text of the article as is done everywhere in the encyclopedia. This has already been discussed on BLPN. Two editors taking an outlier position here does not mean there is no consensus here, and we all know that consensus does not mean 100% agreement. There is vast precedent all over the encyclopedia for this, there are excellent reliable sources, and there is consensus to include. Do we really have to go through the whole thing again, just because one editor says he's having "fun" complaining about it, and another has a grossly wrong interpretation of BLP (read above, too many times to post diffs) which previously led him to immediately revert as if this is defamatory material? You protect a page when there's severe edit warring - there was some a few days ago, but notably when the previous protection was lifted, neither of the two editors who think the name should be out removed it, even though they had opportunity to do so. So I thank them for their restraint in not removing the name again, which perhaps means that they accept the reality of the consensus here, or at least that they did not wish to edit war and risk block when clearly the policy that allows an exception to 3RR (defamatory material on a BLP) was not applicable - so why has it been protected again? I reiterate what I and others said above: there was an exchange about the infobox, and it was amicably and quickly resolved, without edit warring. Perhaps you misread that exchange as a continuation of the problem, but I choose to see the lack of removal of the name as a tacit acceptance that although they disagree, there is no consensus or policy or BLPN support for their position, and so they left it alone while repeating their objections here on Talk. They can pursue this where they like, but my understanding of this situation is that it is at the discretion of the editors on a page as to whether they wish to include well-sourced non-defamatory public material such as this, and the editors here have agreed it belongs here (as did many on BLPN, by the way). Please open the page. Tvoz/ talk 02:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: More than one editor in favor of putting the non-notable minor child's name and identifying information in the article has said "consensus does not equate unanimity". That said, it should also be reasonable to accept that consensus against the inclusion doesn't equate the majority, either. There were several editors as BLP/N who said the name should stay out. But, for some reason, contrary to the reasoning noted above, the consensus among those editors is being ignored. The "consensus" crowd here has been rude, dismissive, disruptive, uncivil, non-collegial in use of the shout-down tactic. Then there was the input of the non-notable minor's name in the infobox. My guess is that is all part (or maybe all) of the reason why an administrator saw fit to lock this article for a period of time. And, frankly, since Wikipedia is not on a deadline, I fail to see the urgency to edit this article. Leaving it alone for a while certainly will do no harm. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's simply no need for protection: no edit war, consensus established (both at BLPN and through long-settled Wikipedia practice), and thus no need to protect the article. And for the record, demonstrating that your odd interpretation of BLPNAME is wrong doesn't make people who demonstrated that "rude, dismissive, disruptive, uncivil, [and] non-collegial." People have tried to explain to you why your view of policy is seriously flawed. You just keep insisting that everyone's wrong and you're right. LHM ^{ask me a question} 03:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

While you and others insist my interpretation of policy is "odd", there are others who think it's on the mark. That's why there really is no consensus yet. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 does not equal "others." There is OBVIOUS consensus, and vast precedent, for keeping well-referenced children's names mentioned in the articles of their parents. Wishing those facts away won't work. LHM ^{ask me a question} 03:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Tvoz, the "fun" I was having was not in "complaining". It was the pleasure of shooting fish in a barrel when faced with some of the appalling arguments presented in favour of keeping the name in the article. And here's my next shot into that barrel. I'm intrigued by your argument that the fact that we are no edit warring proves that we accept that there is consensus. Has it crossed your mind that it might be because we are behaving correctly? HiLo48 ( talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read my comment? I specifically made the point that you two did not edit war when you had the opportunity when the page re-opened, and instead continued the commenting here. I did not say it proved anything, I said perhaps [that] means that they accept the reality of the consensus here, or at least that they did not wish to edit war and risk block when clearly the policy that allows 3RR (defamatory material on a BLP) was not applicable. So yes, my speculation on why you two did not edit war is that either you could see you did not have consensus to make your change, or you recognized that there is no BLP exception to 3RR here which would be the only justification for repeatedly reverting this text, so fine, you can call this "behaving correctly". My question to John therefore stands: why is this page protected - an extreme measure - when there is no edit warring to justify it? This is disrupting the ability to maintain and improve the article, and as a long-time editor here, I object. It's clear that you two have dug your heels in and will never agree with the rest of us and the dozens and dozens of BLPs that take the same position, but so be it. I for one am tired of saying the same thing over and over and over here, so unless you discover some legitimate policy reasons - which I don't expect you will - this conversation should end and the three words remain. Tvoz/ talk 08:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles are usually locked so that consensus change be achieved. Posts like that are not a step in that direction. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

LHM, there is no consensus. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying that over and over and over. It doesn't make it true. Two editors railing against consensus does not invalidate that consensus. LHM ^{ask me a question} 03:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, but no-one's railing. Oh, and WP:IDHT is somewhat personal and insulting too. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It's just making it plain what you're doing. You have no policy-based reasoning, but you now just keep saying "no consensus" in the face of clear consensus and long precedent. It's a glaringly obvious case of WP:IDHT. LHM ^{ask me a question} 03:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A wise Admin taught me once that it's a good strategy to try to avoid the word "You" in posts when there is a disagreement. I don't always remember, but whenever I do I find it's good advice. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• This was really unnecessary. Very high profile BLP subjects such as the Clintons are the exception to this "no child names" rule. When the sourcing is undeniable, as it was in this case, and the name was published by the family (ditto) and there are no credible concerns for the privacy (there weren't) then yes, print the name. Two kinds of pork ^Makin' _Bacon 04:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The name does not belong in the infobox, according to long-standing Template:infobox person consensus. Winkelvi's edit summary was incorrect/incomplete, but his reversion of my edit was absolutely correct: both children counts and names are allowed. Infobox use of names, however, for children, parents, other relatives, have to be notable. (This does not mean they have an article yet, just that they meet WP:GNG and all that.)

We have all agreed Charlotte is not notable, so there's absolutely nothing to discuss on this matter. My apologies for ignorantly jumping the gun. Choor monster ( talk) 15:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this post. You are right, of course. I disagree, however, that "We have all agreed" that the kid is not notable. Many on your side of the broader debate were foolishly excited and did go as far as to suggest the kid is notable on its own right and could be President one day. (Well, of course it could. At least no-one could argue that it was born in the wrong country!) The appalling, excited, emotional, non-policy based arguments on your side of the debate caused a lot of problems on this issue. It didn't help your case at all. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I said "We have all agreed", a present perfect. This is English 101. It makes no implication regarding past statements. As it is, any assertion that the baby is WP:GNG-notable disappeared rather early (I for one never saw any, I only learned of the birth from BLPN, and skimmed the early discussion), replaced with numerous explanations that the much lower standard of WP:V is operative. That you take this utterly bland statement of current discussion reality as an excuse to charge into a one-line rehash of what bothered you earlier in the week and a springboard for a drive-by sniping is simply pathetic trash-talking, a sign that you have absolutely no interest or competence in working towards consensus. Choor monster ( talk) 14:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have given the early discussion a second look, and totally unsurprisingly, discovered that HiLo48 is lying. No one said Charlotte herself was notable. Joojay said, when starting the discussion on BLPN, that the baby was notable for being born and for being a Clinton. That's it. That's not a claim that she is notable, period. Perhaps you can identify the edit where someone made the name a red-link, which would at least be an implicit claim?

Joojay, by the way, is not "many".

On the other hand, Winkelvi kept arguing very strongly that Charlotte does not meet the standards of having a separate article, and accurately cited policy to that effect. Totally irrelevant (not that he's noticed) but it did perhaps make it easier for you and he to pretend you were dealing with "appalling, excited, emotional, non-policy based arguments". Choor monster ( talk) 17:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wedding guests were offered a vegan menu and gluten-free cake, as well as beef. Is Chelsea a vegan? If not, I'd say this sentence is not notable. If she is, the sentence should be put in the context that this is either her or her husband's diet. As it stands, it's not really encyclopedic. How hot is the sun? ( talk) 20:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. (eventually) Choor monster ( talk) 18:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• This should be removed straightaway, as it's nothing more than trivial cruft. LHM ^{ask me a question} 19:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Delete completely trivial. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 21:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Hilarious I deleted it days ago, it was restored by an edit warrior, and now you all want to get rid of it when it was already gotten rid of. Yes, of course it's trivia fan cruft garbage fluff and should be deleted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  If you can't contribute to this talkpage in a civil manner, please refrain from contributing here at all. LHM ^{ask me a question} 01:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely, you don't think those who have been the loudest and rudest and the most egregiously uncivil here over the last couple of days are allowed to throw in a little snark and sarcasm in comments, do you? If you think I'm being any less civil than several others who have been doing nothing BUT be uncivil to those who disagree with their interpretation of BLPN (in the form of false accusations, dishonesty, shout-downs, etc.), then feel free to report me to AN/I. Otherwise, please keep your demands for those who will take them seriously. Truth is, LHM, you're better and more civil than most who've been taking part in the "discussions" at this talk page (and those elsewhere in WP in regard to the same), but you're not exempt from criticism. That in mind, you really have no room to pontificate or demand anything based on civility. Yes, the nastiness and rudeness and blatant incivility needs to stop. But I don't think it's at all out of line for someone who's done a very good job of holding their tongue for the most part (that would be me I'm referring to, in case you're wondering) to throw in some sarcasm while noting the irony of this "consensus". Indeed, in regard to who should stop the incivility -- considering the crap unleashed for days now by those on your side of the "line" -- I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say "you guys go first". Want civility? How about extending some as a show of good faith? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no "irony" in it at all. Wedding food is cruft. The name of a BLP's child is not. LHM ^{ask me a question} 01:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly is irony in seeking this consensus, based on this edit warring, blanket reversion by Cwobeel (who is now calling the wedding meal content "trivia"): [6]. Further irony exists in his edit summary, "Stop the nonsense. If it is reported in RS, we report it here." Yeah, that actually happened. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The wedding meal content is "trivia." It's not ironic to note that. LHM ^{ask me a question} 02:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you're intentionally acting obtuse or you really don't see it. Someone who is today saying it's "trivia" just said about the same trivial content a few days ago "If it is reported in RS, we report it here". That leads me to believe that when he reverted my edit that eliminated what he is today calling "trivia" was more about partisan edit warring and winning than actually caring about the article's integrity. Today it's about "trivia" a few days ago it was good stuff because it came from a reliable source? Irony, definitely. Selective, biased reverting because of who removed it? Possible. Definitely starting to seem that way. Not that it matters to me, personally. It really just reflects on that particular party in a negative fashion. Surely I'm not the only one who sees it for what it is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying now. I thought you were finding irony in that this conent is being removed as trivial, while the info on CC's child was not. I hadn't noticed the edit summaries to which you refer. LHM ^{ask me a question} 02:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have searched and searched and searched for ONE picture of Chelsea's daughter's face, front on. If someone has one, please post it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.219.44.188 ( talk) 13:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not likely to happen for a variety of reasons - strict rules here about use of photos, and there are privacy issues as well. Tvoz/ talk 23:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And on top of that, it's of no interest. Choor monster ( talk) 13:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss here before removal of sourced content Shrikanthv ( talk) 05:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to point out the Geico Gecko interview. She was earning $600,000 dollars a year at NBC News (which is actually $100,000 more than the executive editor at the New York Times) and was criticized by media reporters like Dylan Byers and many others for the interview with the Geico Gecko. Definitely a memorable moment.-- The lorax ( talk) 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above is OR and no evidence provided of how this interview was any more important in her life than any other. I understand that you think this was a memorale moment, but that's just your opinion. Tvoz/ talk 00:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I'm making this an OR jeremiad, a lot of people criticized her for it. I think it's fair to point out her NBC News tenure was contentious.-- The lorax ( talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chelsea Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080309030827/http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com:80/media/storage/paper882/news/2008/03/06/News/Chelsea.Clinton.Visits.Campus-3255099.shtml to http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2008/03/06/News/Chelsea.Clinton.Visits.Campus-3255099.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. — ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the exact dob of a non notable minor. I was reverted with the reason per talk page discussion. Where is that? -- Malerooster ( talk) 05:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Found it. Looks like folks wanted to keep the name. I removed the dob. -- Malerooster ( talk) 05:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Right. Tvoz/ talk 08:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chelsea Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120925083808/http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/sport/omboysleague/archive/2009_2010/2003/06/18/Oxfordshire+Archive/6574693.Chelsea_faces_finals_test/ to http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/sport/omboysleague/archive/2009_2010/2003/06/18/Oxfordshire+Archive/6574693.Chelsea_faces_finals_test/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We seem to be inconsistent about the name we use for her mother. In the lead she is called Hillary Clinton. But in the infobox and the "early life" section she is called Hillary Rodham. IMO it is appropriate for the lead to say Hillary Clinton, since that is what the article about her is now called. But I think the infobox and the text should say Hillary Rodham Clinton. I notice it has been Hillary Rodham for a long time, so I am asking here rather than boldly changing it. Thoughts? -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

At the time Chelsea was born, her mother was using the name Hillary Rodham. 2600:1002:B11E:98B5:A92E:A668:83BE:5551 ( talk) 18:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Am curious if Chelsea receives her income from her parent connections and support, or from her academic credentials and accomplishments as most graduates do. She works for a nonprofit, so does she give the same without claiming a tax deduction? Just curious if givers are really givers, or takers as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.219.45 ( talk) 17:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

She is a private citizen. I don't think we have any business investigating where she gets her income. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, Melanie, not to mention that we don't have any business investigating anything - Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we are not journalists doing investigative reporting. Tvoz/ talk 06:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Somebody added an ancestry chart to the article. User:Tvoz tagged it as "citation needed". Personally I think the section should be deleted. It is not only unreferenced, it is unnecessary. We don't include that kind of information for most biography articles; in fact, we don't include it for her mother or her father! -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree, as I suggested in my edit summary ("overkill"). I thought it odd, also, that this article was singled out for this. Tvoz/ talk 04:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it. It's completely uncited, and inappropriate to include here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Material that has been in this article for at least six years was removed because it was deemed "ridiculous - inappropriate", "sappy", nothing out of the ordinary", and that such stories "can be told about every child". First, no, such stories unfortunately cannot be told about every child, and the daughter of a president and potentially two presidents makes her not at all "any child" meaning that her place in her family, and how her birth was viewed by her parents, is relevant and appropriate. While I do not think it is of supreme importance, this speaks to a family dynamic which has been scrutinized and commented on by journalists, biographers, pop psychologists, etc for years. I had edited it down a bit in deference to the initial complaint, re-adding some of it because it fleshes out her "early years" story a bit, and again, has stood the test of time here on this BLP. Removing the edited-down version without any discussion is what is inappropriate. Since as I said, I don't consider this of supreme importance, I'm not going to put it back yet, and am interested in what others think, but would ask editors to discuss rather than undo edits that explain and attempt to take into account what an initial removal of long-standing material was based on. Anyone care to comment? Tvoz/ talk 23:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I don't feel that those two sentences added much to the article. I wouldn't fight to keep them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither do I - I just don't appreciate the heavy-handedness. Tvoz/ talk 16:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The abbreviations MPhil and DPhil should be fully spelled out as Master of Philosphy and Doctor of Philosophy the first time they are used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 ( talk) 19:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey @ Tvoz:, can we keep the Geico Gecko interview? It was singled out by journalists who felt she didn't really earn the $600,000/year pay check for being a Rock Center correspondent? -- The lorax ( talk) 18:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In what way did it have any impact on her life? With all due respect to what some journalists might have said, this is neither memorable nor important in my view. Singling it out suggests an importance to her career beyond anything said in the source. Thanks for bringing it here - anyone else want to weigh in? Tvoz/ talk 02:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed this from the article:

Hillary said, "if [Chelsea] were to go to a public school, the press would never leave her alone". ^{citation needed}

The quote comes from 2007. I don't think it's particularly helpful for the article which also have quotes from Bill Clinton that are similar that are from closer in time to the events, so I am removing this quote. Knope7 ( talk) 03:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's very strange that there is a 2008 section regarding her mother's presidential campaign, but no section for the 2016 campaign despite Chelsea Clinton's similar role as a surrogate for her mother's campaign. Calibrador ( talk) 02:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

She went to University College, Oxford. Oxford itself isn't the name of any of the universities IN Oxford - a city with 38 Colleges and six Permanent Private Halls. The status of Cambridge is similar. Just putting 'oxford' is quite embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 ( talk) 18:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks. It was already "University College, Oxford" in the infobox and the body of the text, but not in the lede. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

At Oxford, she was a shoe-in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300A:D09:F500:B5B9:96E7:681F:906C ( talk) 23:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chelsea Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810145800/http://www.hillary-rodham-clinton.org/chelsea_clinton.html to http://www.hillary-rodham-clinton.org/chelsea_clinton.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810145800/http://www.hillary-rodham-clinton.org/chelsea_clinton.html to http://www.hillary-rodham-clinton.org/chelsea_clinton.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is written by someone working for the Clintons. No mention is made of the likely father and no mention is made of the use of the fund she manages What is "As part of her work, she gives paid speeches to raise money with her fees going directly to the foundation, whose goals relate to improving global health" used for? Certainly not anyone from Haiti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.66.170 ( talk) 18:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chelsea Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130320095640/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20121016/greenwich-village/chelsea-clinton-recognized-for-interfaith-work-at-nyu to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20121016/greenwich-village/chelsea-clinton-recognized-for-interfaith-work-at-nyu
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220215853/http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2008/03/25/chelsea-clinton-dismisses-monica-question/ to http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2008/03/25/chelsea-clinton-dismisses-monica-question

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)