![]() | 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
"Hillary Clinton made culturally dismissive remarks about Tammy Wynette and baking cookies and having teas during the campaign that were ill-considered by her own admission."
I'm new here, and although I think it would probably be common sense to delete it, I figured I'd ask permission first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logabob ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I have expanded the wording a bit on the Tammy Wynette and baking cookies/having teas mentions, because they were perhaps a bit mysterious. Again, the footnotes give the full story on them. They were quite notable during the campaign. The idea that these remarks, and the Gennifer Flowers scandal, should just be removed from the article completely is ludicrous. They were crucial in first defining Hillary Clinton to the American public, and are covered in all biographies of Hillary, including her own autobiography. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have created a "1992 presidential campaign" section to include the above material, separate from "Role as First Lady". (They used to be together because the campaign incidents foretold many of the difficulties she would have as First Lady. But I can see the rationale for splitting them.) I still have "1992 presidential campaign" underneath the top-level "First Lady of the United States", even though obviously it precedes that; this is an artifice that is used in many political articles, to avoid having too many shortish top-level sections. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And whatever the questions here, mass deletion of historically important material is not the answer. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I've moved "1992 presidential campaign" out of the FL US section and into the preceding Arkansas section. It avoids the above artifice, and has some advantages with respect to how the images are used. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Your last remark I do not understand — I have not left the same material out, indeed I restored it. Specifically, you with this edit deleted all the material on the 1992 campaign. This is what I am criticizing you for. Regardless of which section it belonged in, it needs to be in the article. I with this sequence of edits restored the 1992 campaign material, but into a different section. If you had merely discussed your concern with what section it belonged in, I would have no quarrel with you. But your deleting of all of it was completely without merit. And your bringing User:Logabob into it is a red herring, because he or she was only concerned about one small phrase in the 1992 campaign material, not the whole thing. Wasted Time R ( talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
My rejection of User:Logabob's proposal to delete "baking cookies and having teas" was because that step was completely unwarranted and it was clear that user had not bothered to read the footnotes about it. That said, upon looking at it again, I realized that to someone who wasn't already familiar with these remarks, the wording was so terse as to be a bit mysterious. Thus I have expanded the main text wording to hopefully make that better. Yes, I should have seen this the first time around and made the change then, at the time I responded to Logabob. My bad for not doing so. But this again does not warrant you deleting all of the campaign material, including Gennifer Flowers, 60 Minutes, conservative attacks, and so on. Wasted Time R ( talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no desire to continue these quarrels with you. But it is often hard to believe you are genuinely interested in article issues; you just seem to latch onto whatever complaints or comments other editors have. For instance, in the past you wanted to amplify the coverage of the Lewinsky scandal here, including renaming it and adding explicit "Bill and Monica cigar" descriptions. Yet now, you want to remove all mention of Gennifer Flowers from the article. How do we reconcile these positions? Wasted Time R ( talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What I find most interesting about the inclusion of this "Baking Cookies/Tammy Wynette" information is the timing. Per Wikipedia Guidelines, I definitely want to assume "Good Faith." But, I'm a little unclear on what would constitute "Good Faith" here. The Tammy Wynette comment was made over, what, 15 years ago? So, why is it all of the sudden a subject of MASS importance of some to have included in HRC's biographical page? I guess that all these "Good Faith" edits adding any and every questionable thing Bill or Hillary Clinton has ever said or done are just "Good Faith" attempts at making their articles as complete as possible. And, since everything is done "in good faith" they couldn't possible have anything to do with any heated primary election that has renewed a great interest in 15 year old comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Ways ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment:Tvoz, please stop being irritating and disruptive and you should at least apologize for your latest false accusation because I was not the one who brought this back up [5] Mr.grantevans2 ( talk) 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should be featured. Anyone agree? QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[...] new edits are quickly buried in controller(s) quicksand, e.g. [8], [...] Mr.grantevans2 ( talk) 14:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean, she "...attracted national attention in 1969 when she delivered an address as the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College..."
She did? Well where is the proof? Hmm, I was a teenager in 1969 and I sure don't remember this 'national attention'; do you?
Cite the 1969 media sources, please, to prove that this was 'national attention'. Rather than just something picked up by the local Massachusetts media.
And "first student to speak at commencement" at Wellesley? I mean, come on, commencement is all about students! Of course students would have been allowed to speak at a commencement ceremony! This doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This is how the body of the article explains it:
The style of the article is that footnotes aren't used in the lead section, as the lead just summarizes material present in the body of the article, and the footnotes are all there in the body (as you can see). As for national atttention, Life magazine was definitely national and very widely read and influential at the time. The Irv Kupcinet show was not as well known across the nation, but was syndicated to up to 70 stations, so she gained additional national exposure from it as well. As for "first student to speak", as the article body makes clear, she was the first to deliver the commencement address; you are likely right that other students probably made introductory remarks, presentations of class gifts, etc., before her.
But I agree the lead section language wasn't clear on the second point, so I've now changed it to: ... Hillary Rodham attracted national attention in 1969 for her remarks as the first student to deliver the commencement address at Wellesley College. Better, I hope. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've also added a direct cite to the Life issue in question (June 20, 1969, article title "The Class of '69"). Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I heard somewhere that there as a war going on about whether she should be refered to as leading candidate or just candidate. Currently it is on just candidate. Which one do you think it should be?
Non-Biased facts:
Leading: -She is in the top two -She should get her Florida and Michigan Delegates -There is talk about a re-election in Florida -She is ahead on the polls in pensylvania -She is heavily attacked, giving her publicity -It could not only be used as first place, but with power. Like in the fact she is powerful
Candidate -She isn't frontrunner -Her chances of winning are slim -"Leading" makes her look powerful -There is no way she can get her Florida and Michigan delegates -She is the weaker candidate -Shye can't raise enough money
PLEASE HELP WITH FORMATTING! [22:16, 16 April 2008 Politicalpundit]
I took out the word Protestant from info box. In general just the word Christian is enough. This also matches Obama's and McCain's articles. Steve Dufour ( talk) 03:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Are details of Hillary Clinton's tax returns really notable enough to be included in her BLP? There is certainly an argument for covering them in the campaign article, but I are they notable enough in the context of a summary of her entire life? I find this detail hard to reconcile with WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Under "Presidential campaign of 2008" it says : Clinton's admission in late March that her campaign statements about having been under hostile fire from snipers during a 1996 visit to U.S. troops at Tuzla Air Base in Bosnia-Herzegovina were mistaken ....
Who the hell mistook her statement ?? Wasn`t that a clear and unmistakable statement ?? Only in Wikipedia !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.70.49 ( talk • contribs)
Ok, those aren't my harsh words, they are what I read in the following article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/19/wuspols219.xml Anyway, I searched Google because I found it a bit hard to believe. On a last ditch effort I checked this page to see if it were true or not. I'm still not sure. The source is Camille Paglia but just because it's in print doesn't mean I am going to believe it outright. Anyway, if this is true that Sen. Clinton wears color contacts, I would like to know if there is any reason she has given why (and when) she started doing so. It's trivial, I know, but I think a lot of people would be fascinated by this. Full disclosure: I do not support Sen. Clinton for president. But, unlike Ms. Paglia, I don't find this a scandalous aspect of her character or relevant other than just being an interesting factoid--if true--sort of like I find it interesting which hollywood actors are vegetarians (or else it's a possible slander-rumor to be debunked--yes, I know that's not what Wikipedia is for!--which might make an interesting note for Paglia's page if she has one). Well, anyway, if anyone has any comment, I'd like to have it. -- 210.172.229.198 ( talk) 05:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry you feel that way about me. I'm disappointed but hope if you hear me out you will tone-down your response. In order to not "attack" her I posted in this discussion first. I did not wontonly edit the article. I hope in the future you will be more civil. I have a lot of respect for wikipedia and if you seriously think I am attacking her with my suggested addition, then why don't you just remove my comment here altogether? I suspect the reason is because, despite your words, you know I am not attacking her--and I appreciate that at least. Like I said, it was an interesting piece of trivia, in my opinion. Sorry that upset you. I hope I can convince you that my intentions are not sinister. If it were about Obama, or really any public figure as visible as Sen. Clinton, I would feel the same way. Not everyone is a partisan out to get someone; just some of us are intrigued by political trivia. It is interesting to me when any public figure alters their appearence or has a unique foible. Please be objective. I'm willing to accept if it is too trivial for this article. Also, I thought at the very least it would be worth giving a heads-up here if it were false because probably someone who IS partisan will try to add it to her article. I know this page gets slandered a lot. I'm willing to dismiss your belligerence as a consequence of that. If you are a regular editor of this article keeping it free from vandalism, then as a Democrat, I thank you. Also, sorry for the anonomous IP. I'm not at home and I don't want to log-in. Partly because I don't want someone to vandalize ME. PS Preference for one candidate does not necessarily preclude admiration or respect for the other.
k, whats with the argument in the middle of the discussion page? arent we supposed to talk about improving the article, not debunking just one line from it? Mast3rlinkx ( talk) 00:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)mast3rlinkx Mast3rlinkx ( talk) 00:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing notable about this, nor is there a reliable source for it. Tvoz | talk 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm not sure what the significance of the colored contacts are even if true. She also colors her hair for sure, she uses eye makeup and face makeup and ... it's all cosmetics. Is coloring hair okay but colored contacts somehow bad? Maybe I'm missing the point ... Is this supposed to indicate something about her character? Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a very important fact that is missing from Senator Clinton's entry.
In an interview of her former employer, Attorney Jerry Zeifman, he reveals that he fired Hillary for being "an unethical and dishonest lawyer." A full quote from the cited article appears below.
[long quote elided]
Source: [11]
JaymzLawOne ( talk) 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
How tall is she? I can't find the information anywhere in this article, and the reference at Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates is to a forum -- perhaps the worst reference I've seen on Wikipedia in years. -- M @ r ē ino 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion. In reading through the comments it seems there is one editor that feels the article is too long, while a majority of other editors feel that while the article is long, it isn't too long (right now). However, it appears that productive discussion on this matter has ended. Feel free to revert this closure if one wishes to continue the discussion. -- Bobblehead (rants) 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article is 15k above the recommended limit for text in an article. Much of the information that is "main articled" at the top is duplicate and excessive, and should follow summary guidelines. There is also far too much trivia and other things that are only notable because she is notable. Information is supposed to verify her important if its on her page, not viceversa. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[out] For what it's worth, this is how it comes up as 60K readable prose. But the larger point is that reasonable people have disagreed about the ideal length for articles like this and it's a judgment call, not some kind of regulation. I, for one, do not think it is too long now. Tvoz | talk 03:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] I think what Ottava is ultimately looking for is a strong policy-level limit on article size. Such a limit will never be implemented on Wikipedia, because (a) long articles are not always bad, (b) an article's quality is not a function of its length, and (c) size needs to be taken into consideration with other concerns, such as NPOV and sourcing. Remember the words of WP:SIZE itself: "No need for haste". szyslak ( t) 21:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[out] Ottava Rima, Your dismissive and uncollegial attitude doesn't really merit a response, but I'll take one more stab at it. And thanks, but I won't be leaving Wikipedia or this article any more than I expect Wasted Time R will, certainly not at your behest.
We have a lot to contend with on this article, from well-meaning editors who have differing views of what is notable, to partisan warriors, to roving bands of trolls and vandals, and most of the time we manage to work out compromises and reach consensus about the article content and it is usually fairly stable. If that means that the article might be a little bit longer than the guidelines recommend, so be it. This subject is a complex individual who has a long and varied career and life to be presented in this biography, and most of us approach it with an open mind and attempt to be fair, comprehensive, and even get some decent writing in there. At this point I do not see any additional section that should be forked off to satisfy a size concern that you have. Unfortunately you may not have meant it to be this way but your comments have not been helpful in this process, as you have chosen to attack the editors and hold on rigidly to your preconceived notion of what the "rules" are. As I said, please weigh in at the FAC that the article is not ready for featuring because we don't slavishly follow the size guidelines but do be accurate as in fact Bobblehead and I independently showed you that the article's readable prose is 59K (I had it at 60 and realized I forgot to remove the headers, so my count also shows now as 59K). Or don't be accurate - doesn't matter. Have your say, and we'll see what the FA people decide. But stop harrassing and insulting the editors here. If you don't have anything new to add, I don't plan on responding to any more of your screeds here that make the same point over and over. Others may have more stamina than I do for this. Tvoz | talk 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
|
Don't want to add anything to the article as it may be seen as irrelevant, however, is it worth mentioning her "wrestling match" against Barack Obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazzeee ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Many of the notes feature trivia in them. This is not really acceptable under MoS. The following are part of the trivia:
If this information is important, it must go into the article. Also, much of this information is not important to summaries of the topic and are better served in the main article that discusses them. Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Where did the information go of her being on the board of walmart, as well as the controversy she caused among unions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVpPGxuafA http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/hillary_clintons_walmart_years/ -- Waxsin ( talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Her being on the Wal-mart board is mentioned in the introduction:
and is discussed in-depth in the "Later Arkansas years" section:
In fact, cite 112 is the ABC News story that is you referenced. Satisfactory? Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"In the 2008 presidential nomination race, Clinton has won the most primaries and delegates of any woman in U.S. history."
Compared to who? 71.68.15.63 ( talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) This has a long article history to it. What we're trying to get across is, she's the first woman ever to run for president in the U.S. who had a real chance of winning (even if she didn't eventually win). That's very notable. Our trying to say this has been through three or four different formulations so far, with earlier incarnations objected to once Obama passed her, and then another objected to when this obscure "win" by Chisholm was discovered. This is the current formulation. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Pethr, please discuss content changes here before cutting stuff. There's a rationale for everything that's in the article, and it at least merits some discussion before removal.
Regarding the role of her parents, in that era it was not automatic at all that parents would encourage girls to pursue careers and goals of their choosing. Many just wanted their daughters to get married and start families, nothing else. Hillary owes a lot to her parents, both her mother and her father, who in other respects was very conservative (in the non-political sense) but in this respect was not. So this merits inclusion. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, with content edits, it's best to keep them separate, so that we can change one without affecting the other. I think "faculty" is better than "professors" because the former term encompasses teachers who may not be professors in a strict term, but who are relevant to hiring goals, diversity, etc. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wasted Time R, I will reply here as it is about the article and not any sort of dispute or whatever. The point about AP is that they don't publish the story. The content is changed (edited) before published on other websites and in fact many stories or parts of them come from syndicated sources without any acknolegment on Wikipedia and rightly so. There is no reason to mention AP as a publisher because they don't publish the story, it is not part of their work or periodical and their author is correctly cited when known. It is in fact a mistake to leave it this way. If you were writing an academic paper you would either find the original stroy on AP website (which may not be possible) or cited author and publisher of website where you have found that information. The same applies to Wikipedia. May be I'm missing something, please tell me what you mean. Thank you for all the work on this article! I think it can be made into FA with a little more work.-- Pethr ( talk) 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought she only won by about 8.5 points, not 10.
funny, considering that she said she HAD to win at least by at least 10 percentage points to stay in the race. so she's just being stubborn.
[editorializing elided] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.41.51 ( talk) 05:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I Wayne Wilson A Town OF Rhodhiss Commissioner would love to Invite you to our very small town with the big heart. We have a lot of history that I belive would be of interest to you. For one the first American Flag on the moon material was woven here at the old mill. In 1982 the Mills shut down . However the town has survied and will keep going . This is a town of less then 900. That helps one another when they need something . A town that stays as one . The town was found in 1901 by George Hiss and John Rhods . They started the Mill town with one mill on the Caldwell county side . In 1916 they built a second Mill on the Burke county side of town . You just need to log on to the Town of Rhodhiss web site and you will see a lot of great things past and Now . Thank You Commissioner Wayne Wilson 828-443-6503 or wwilson@roosterbush.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.118.225 ( talk) 02:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Why no mention of Vincent Foster and his strange death? Erectile Dysfunctional ( talk) 13:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The following new section was just added to the article:
Hillary Clinton has described herself as a Methodist [1] and has stated the Methodist church she attended as a youth gave her the opportunity to expand [her] horizons". [2] For fifteen years she has been part of a secretive religious group called "the Fellowship", whose congregants consist of heavy political players. The group was established in the 1930s by a Methodist evangelist named Abraham Vereide and is currently led by Doug Coe. In 2005, TIME Magazine named Coe as one of the 25 most powerful evangelicals, calling him "the Stealth Persuader." [3] [4] In 1993, journalist Jeff Sharlet went undercover to learn about the Fellowship, who he described as "secret theocrats" and as having "traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries" and various dictators. Sharlet quotes Coe as saying, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't", and says that the group's leaders "consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride". In her autobiography Living History, Hillary Clinton described Coe as "a genuinely loving spiritual mentor" who "became a source of strength and friendship" for her during her more difficult years as first lady. [5] [6] [7]
I've followed up some of the sources, and I have to say that I find the above account rather misleading. All the more so as the same NBC article that is the main source for the above (to the extent in fact of being plagiarized) also includes the following: "Asked about Coe’s influence on Hillary Clinton, people close to her told NBC News that she does not consider him one of her leading spiritual advisors. They added that Senator Clinton has never contributed to Coe’s group, is not a member of The Fellowship and has never heard the sermons obtained by NBC News. And, they said, Doug Coe is not Hillary Clinton’s minister."
I suggest a revert. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, hold on there a moment. It sounds like what you are doing is bowlderizing. And, to try to avoid trouble, it sounds like what Clinton's "people close to her" were doing is backing away from statements Clinton herself made earlier. There is a contradiction here between Hillary earlier and those "close supporters" later! The contradiction needs to be described. The whole section should not be simply removed. Cryptographic hash ( talk) 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have done the above. So what we now have, in the main bio part of the article as is appropriate, is:
The same cites that the "Religion" section was using on HRC's relationship with The Fellowship — Mother Jones article, The Atlantic article, NBC News story — are being used here. This is the right way to do it, in the context of how this article works, as I've explained above. I've thus removed the "Religion" section; it's now partly inappropriate (describing Coe and the fellowship) and partly superfluous (now that the main bio material covers HRC's relationship to them). Wasted Time R ( talk) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Looking at all edits on this matter, I'm out of reverts ... hopefully others will weigh in. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedias bios are here for notable people, and NOTABLE information regarding them. The media hasn't covered any of this except in passing, no large or credible organizations are talking about this, there has been no incident. Adding that content doesn't make sense any more than adding her shoe size or a clip of her laugh. Just because the media has talked about it (again, not much) doesn't make it noteworthy. Stop smearing, and try to be useful. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 04:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
A follow-up: User:Ewenss, who added this "Religion" section, User:Cryptographic hash, who argued for it here and did reversions to it, and User:CyberAnth, who did additional reversions to it, have all turned out to be one big sockpuppet and have been indefinitely blocked. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As of 5-8-2008 8:10p.m. there was picture of a walrus in place of Hillary's Picture... Please someone look farther in to this 76.26.73.193 ( talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Jonn1234
Main article: Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors LESBIAN!!!! Clinton has received over a dozen awards and honors during her career, from both American and international organizations, for her activities concerning health, women, and children".
This word does not belong in this section. Throckmorton Guildersleeve ( talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
93% in, shes beating obama by 40 points, wow. We need sources for that. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 04:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
| ||
---|---|---|
Pre-presidency 44th President of the United States First term Second term Post-presidency Publications Personal ![]() |
||
This biography of Hillary's list of subarticles
(viz., Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors, and List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton)
---lacks an initial installment about the
Early Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton
without which it cannot gel into a sequential series analogous with the ones for Barack ------ >
| ||
---|---|---|
|
||
![]() ![]() | ||
---and Mac. ------ >
Yet, since the constituent articles in so very many series are actually more nonsequential than not (as in, e/g, -Effects of the Sept. 11 Attacks, -Perpetrators of the Sept. 11 Attacks, -Victims of the Sept. 11 Attacks, etc.), maybe the existing components of "Hillary" subarticles are sufficient to merit their comprising a series. Any feedback? — Justmeherenow ( ) 15:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
| ||
---|---|---|
First Lady of the United States
U.S. Senator from New York
U.S. Secretary of State
2008 presidential campaign 2016 presidential campaign Organizations
![]() |
||
Readers of main articles habitually look for series' navigation template towards the articles' upper right, yet the Rodham Clinton biographical series includes two somewhat replicated navigation templates, one that is specifically for the series towards the upper right and another one that is more inclusive of more tangential links as a banner along the bottom. Perusing the example of a main articles cited at WP:SUMMARY, World War II, for guidance, we see at the upper right a navigational template linking to its constituent subarticles, while there is also a template at the bottom of World War II containing all the WP articles about the many World War II military campaigns. However, as its example of a navigation box to subarticles, WP:SUMMARY gives the Isaac Newton biographical series, whose only template specifically related to Newton is a sidebar nav box towards the upper right.
So, if we're to be guided by both WP informal practice and its formal guidelines, we can choose to either
I think this is the largest scam of all president families, even though Bush cheated on his election either. Many media report and several rounds of court involved! they even had a website for this case: http://www.paulvclinton.com/ and many Youtube video for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.12.36 ( talk) 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw on Google.com that Hilary Clinton is a distant cousin to Angelina Jolie 9th cousins once removed to be exact I mean thats what the Google website said anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 ( talk) 01:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I don`t know? and plus what does Jennifer care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 ( talk) 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else consider the current choice of photo unflattering? To me it has the deer-in-the-headlights look of the end of a long photo-shoot---emotionless eyes above a tensely-held Pepsodent smile. There are surely more flattering photos of her than that in the public domain, though if the lapel pin is a requirement that might narrow the choices. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have seen a noticable reduction in posting activity on blogs and this Wiki page regarding the 2008 Democrat primary. Thank goodness. The folks were getting way too dramatic and passionate for quite some time. Maybe ... just maybe ... we can begin discussing the national issues instead of posturing ... but then again ... I still believe in the tooth-fairy ... but "there is always hope" (Aragorn, LOTR) ... Oxfordden ( talk) 02:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
"In the 2008 presidential nomination race, Clinton succeeded in winning more primaries and delegates than any other woman in U.S. history." How many other women have run in primaries as a presidential nominee? The entire introduction needs citation as it smacks of her campaign... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.217.196 ( talk) 11:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks for helping with this article... and you got in the Star Ledger... and at least one Wikipedia editor noticed :) — Rickyrab | Talk 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is there zero mention in this article of the lawsuit Paul v. Clinton, Clinton's involvement and dealings with Peter F. Paul, and the controversy surrounding Gala Hollywood Farewell Salute to President Clinton ? This should be covered, probably in at least a paragraph or so. Cirt ( talk) 06:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Mailaccount added Image:Hrcofficial.jpg to the article, Bobblehead reverted on the grounds "Image pixilated and out of focus. Looks like it was blown up from a thumbnail.", Mailaccount added again, I reverted, now TiusP has put it back in again. I'd be fine with using this image if it were of passable quality, but I agree with Bobblehead that it isn't. Other opinions welcome. Wasted Time R ( talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed Image:Hrcofficial.jpg from "Senate election of 2000", where it was last placed, per this discussion. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, I downloaded the image of Clinton's signature, tried to remove the JPEG artifacts, and enhanced the image. I was bold and overwrote the original file, as I felt that there was no way that my enhancements would be controversial. I then reconsidered and posted this here to see what you all think. My version is in the article now. If you think my alterations are not an improvement, please say so, and I will see if I can fix them. Thanks. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"After Super Tuesday, Obama won the eleven remaining February primaries and caucuses.[85] Obama and Clinton split delegates and states nearly equally in Vermont, Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island.[86]"
This is a section taken from the obama page, ive raised the issue there too. Im quite sure Obama won vermont before the others were called for Clinton, technically, for an hour or so, obama had a 12 consecutive lead. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 19:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The delegates from F and M have been counted, with a few mathematical adjustments to ensure Obama keeps the delegate lead. Clinton gets quite a lot more delegates than obama but it wont be enough. That means however she now takes the lead in the popular vote. We can get the sources together and decide how to word it all. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Being a true greenhorn to this process of editing and even submitting, I am leaving a comment based on my comparisons between the Obama Wikipedia page and HR Clinton Wikipedia page: Just bare with me, as I jump in to say, I notice the same subtle forms of sexism throughout culture when looking at the lives of most men and women that seems to survive over time. The contrast of information emphasis makes for shocking observation. Yet, the point valid to consider here is that as a woman, Hillary's individual behaviors, remarks, appearance, things of this nature are examined within a resource, from which many have come to expect a lucid and socially conscious standard. Hillary fulfills an active political and legal career(s) that deserve examination based on her professional accomplishments by the same standards assumed to provide in the examination of Obama's career. Has anyone talked about his eye color? His height? Has anyone examined his remarks as socially unacceptable? Looked at whether he bakes, what he dresses, or how his hair is styled? In other words, Hillary's professional life is looked on as a noun; an object with not too subtle hints of negativity. Where as Obama's professional life as been assumed to be viewed in action; as a verb! Can you all reexamine any and all unconsciously conditioned assumptions and the motives for those assumptions? If nothing else, this sort of willingness to self-reflect can continue to reveal a professional depth at Wikipedia that has earned respect. This is the first time that I have experienced such glaringly unacceptable disparity in the treatment of subject matter. I put to you all then, in information gathering and assembling for reference, it is not about unchecked obsession of personalities or one's deep-seated, subjective reactions to such, now is it?```` Cette façon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cette façon ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
"Hillary Clinton made culturally dismissive remarks about Tammy Wynette and baking cookies and having teas during the campaign that were ill-considered by her own admission."
I'm new here, and although I think it would probably be common sense to delete it, I figured I'd ask permission first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logabob ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I have expanded the wording a bit on the Tammy Wynette and baking cookies/having teas mentions, because they were perhaps a bit mysterious. Again, the footnotes give the full story on them. They were quite notable during the campaign. The idea that these remarks, and the Gennifer Flowers scandal, should just be removed from the article completely is ludicrous. They were crucial in first defining Hillary Clinton to the American public, and are covered in all biographies of Hillary, including her own autobiography. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have created a "1992 presidential campaign" section to include the above material, separate from "Role as First Lady". (They used to be together because the campaign incidents foretold many of the difficulties she would have as First Lady. But I can see the rationale for splitting them.) I still have "1992 presidential campaign" underneath the top-level "First Lady of the United States", even though obviously it precedes that; this is an artifice that is used in many political articles, to avoid having too many shortish top-level sections. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And whatever the questions here, mass deletion of historically important material is not the answer. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I've moved "1992 presidential campaign" out of the FL US section and into the preceding Arkansas section. It avoids the above artifice, and has some advantages with respect to how the images are used. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Your last remark I do not understand — I have not left the same material out, indeed I restored it. Specifically, you with this edit deleted all the material on the 1992 campaign. This is what I am criticizing you for. Regardless of which section it belonged in, it needs to be in the article. I with this sequence of edits restored the 1992 campaign material, but into a different section. If you had merely discussed your concern with what section it belonged in, I would have no quarrel with you. But your deleting of all of it was completely without merit. And your bringing User:Logabob into it is a red herring, because he or she was only concerned about one small phrase in the 1992 campaign material, not the whole thing. Wasted Time R ( talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
My rejection of User:Logabob's proposal to delete "baking cookies and having teas" was because that step was completely unwarranted and it was clear that user had not bothered to read the footnotes about it. That said, upon looking at it again, I realized that to someone who wasn't already familiar with these remarks, the wording was so terse as to be a bit mysterious. Thus I have expanded the main text wording to hopefully make that better. Yes, I should have seen this the first time around and made the change then, at the time I responded to Logabob. My bad for not doing so. But this again does not warrant you deleting all of the campaign material, including Gennifer Flowers, 60 Minutes, conservative attacks, and so on. Wasted Time R ( talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no desire to continue these quarrels with you. But it is often hard to believe you are genuinely interested in article issues; you just seem to latch onto whatever complaints or comments other editors have. For instance, in the past you wanted to amplify the coverage of the Lewinsky scandal here, including renaming it and adding explicit "Bill and Monica cigar" descriptions. Yet now, you want to remove all mention of Gennifer Flowers from the article. How do we reconcile these positions? Wasted Time R ( talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What I find most interesting about the inclusion of this "Baking Cookies/Tammy Wynette" information is the timing. Per Wikipedia Guidelines, I definitely want to assume "Good Faith." But, I'm a little unclear on what would constitute "Good Faith" here. The Tammy Wynette comment was made over, what, 15 years ago? So, why is it all of the sudden a subject of MASS importance of some to have included in HRC's biographical page? I guess that all these "Good Faith" edits adding any and every questionable thing Bill or Hillary Clinton has ever said or done are just "Good Faith" attempts at making their articles as complete as possible. And, since everything is done "in good faith" they couldn't possible have anything to do with any heated primary election that has renewed a great interest in 15 year old comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Ways ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment:Tvoz, please stop being irritating and disruptive and you should at least apologize for your latest false accusation because I was not the one who brought this back up [5] Mr.grantevans2 ( talk) 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should be featured. Anyone agree? QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[...] new edits are quickly buried in controller(s) quicksand, e.g. [8], [...] Mr.grantevans2 ( talk) 14:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean, she "...attracted national attention in 1969 when she delivered an address as the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College..."
She did? Well where is the proof? Hmm, I was a teenager in 1969 and I sure don't remember this 'national attention'; do you?
Cite the 1969 media sources, please, to prove that this was 'national attention'. Rather than just something picked up by the local Massachusetts media.
And "first student to speak at commencement" at Wellesley? I mean, come on, commencement is all about students! Of course students would have been allowed to speak at a commencement ceremony! This doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This is how the body of the article explains it:
The style of the article is that footnotes aren't used in the lead section, as the lead just summarizes material present in the body of the article, and the footnotes are all there in the body (as you can see). As for national atttention, Life magazine was definitely national and very widely read and influential at the time. The Irv Kupcinet show was not as well known across the nation, but was syndicated to up to 70 stations, so she gained additional national exposure from it as well. As for "first student to speak", as the article body makes clear, she was the first to deliver the commencement address; you are likely right that other students probably made introductory remarks, presentations of class gifts, etc., before her.
But I agree the lead section language wasn't clear on the second point, so I've now changed it to: ... Hillary Rodham attracted national attention in 1969 for her remarks as the first student to deliver the commencement address at Wellesley College. Better, I hope. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've also added a direct cite to the Life issue in question (June 20, 1969, article title "The Class of '69"). Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I heard somewhere that there as a war going on about whether she should be refered to as leading candidate or just candidate. Currently it is on just candidate. Which one do you think it should be?
Non-Biased facts:
Leading: -She is in the top two -She should get her Florida and Michigan Delegates -There is talk about a re-election in Florida -She is ahead on the polls in pensylvania -She is heavily attacked, giving her publicity -It could not only be used as first place, but with power. Like in the fact she is powerful
Candidate -She isn't frontrunner -Her chances of winning are slim -"Leading" makes her look powerful -There is no way she can get her Florida and Michigan delegates -She is the weaker candidate -Shye can't raise enough money
PLEASE HELP WITH FORMATTING! [22:16, 16 April 2008 Politicalpundit]
I took out the word Protestant from info box. In general just the word Christian is enough. This also matches Obama's and McCain's articles. Steve Dufour ( talk) 03:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Are details of Hillary Clinton's tax returns really notable enough to be included in her BLP? There is certainly an argument for covering them in the campaign article, but I are they notable enough in the context of a summary of her entire life? I find this detail hard to reconcile with WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Under "Presidential campaign of 2008" it says : Clinton's admission in late March that her campaign statements about having been under hostile fire from snipers during a 1996 visit to U.S. troops at Tuzla Air Base in Bosnia-Herzegovina were mistaken ....
Who the hell mistook her statement ?? Wasn`t that a clear and unmistakable statement ?? Only in Wikipedia !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.70.49 ( talk • contribs)
Ok, those aren't my harsh words, they are what I read in the following article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/19/wuspols219.xml Anyway, I searched Google because I found it a bit hard to believe. On a last ditch effort I checked this page to see if it were true or not. I'm still not sure. The source is Camille Paglia but just because it's in print doesn't mean I am going to believe it outright. Anyway, if this is true that Sen. Clinton wears color contacts, I would like to know if there is any reason she has given why (and when) she started doing so. It's trivial, I know, but I think a lot of people would be fascinated by this. Full disclosure: I do not support Sen. Clinton for president. But, unlike Ms. Paglia, I don't find this a scandalous aspect of her character or relevant other than just being an interesting factoid--if true--sort of like I find it interesting which hollywood actors are vegetarians (or else it's a possible slander-rumor to be debunked--yes, I know that's not what Wikipedia is for!--which might make an interesting note for Paglia's page if she has one). Well, anyway, if anyone has any comment, I'd like to have it. -- 210.172.229.198 ( talk) 05:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry you feel that way about me. I'm disappointed but hope if you hear me out you will tone-down your response. In order to not "attack" her I posted in this discussion first. I did not wontonly edit the article. I hope in the future you will be more civil. I have a lot of respect for wikipedia and if you seriously think I am attacking her with my suggested addition, then why don't you just remove my comment here altogether? I suspect the reason is because, despite your words, you know I am not attacking her--and I appreciate that at least. Like I said, it was an interesting piece of trivia, in my opinion. Sorry that upset you. I hope I can convince you that my intentions are not sinister. If it were about Obama, or really any public figure as visible as Sen. Clinton, I would feel the same way. Not everyone is a partisan out to get someone; just some of us are intrigued by political trivia. It is interesting to me when any public figure alters their appearence or has a unique foible. Please be objective. I'm willing to accept if it is too trivial for this article. Also, I thought at the very least it would be worth giving a heads-up here if it were false because probably someone who IS partisan will try to add it to her article. I know this page gets slandered a lot. I'm willing to dismiss your belligerence as a consequence of that. If you are a regular editor of this article keeping it free from vandalism, then as a Democrat, I thank you. Also, sorry for the anonomous IP. I'm not at home and I don't want to log-in. Partly because I don't want someone to vandalize ME. PS Preference for one candidate does not necessarily preclude admiration or respect for the other.
k, whats with the argument in the middle of the discussion page? arent we supposed to talk about improving the article, not debunking just one line from it? Mast3rlinkx ( talk) 00:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)mast3rlinkx Mast3rlinkx ( talk) 00:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing notable about this, nor is there a reliable source for it. Tvoz | talk 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm not sure what the significance of the colored contacts are even if true. She also colors her hair for sure, she uses eye makeup and face makeup and ... it's all cosmetics. Is coloring hair okay but colored contacts somehow bad? Maybe I'm missing the point ... Is this supposed to indicate something about her character? Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a very important fact that is missing from Senator Clinton's entry.
In an interview of her former employer, Attorney Jerry Zeifman, he reveals that he fired Hillary for being "an unethical and dishonest lawyer." A full quote from the cited article appears below.
[long quote elided]
Source: [11]
JaymzLawOne ( talk) 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
How tall is she? I can't find the information anywhere in this article, and the reference at Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates is to a forum -- perhaps the worst reference I've seen on Wikipedia in years. -- M @ r ē ino 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion. In reading through the comments it seems there is one editor that feels the article is too long, while a majority of other editors feel that while the article is long, it isn't too long (right now). However, it appears that productive discussion on this matter has ended. Feel free to revert this closure if one wishes to continue the discussion. -- Bobblehead (rants) 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article is 15k above the recommended limit for text in an article. Much of the information that is "main articled" at the top is duplicate and excessive, and should follow summary guidelines. There is also far too much trivia and other things that are only notable because she is notable. Information is supposed to verify her important if its on her page, not viceversa. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[out] For what it's worth, this is how it comes up as 60K readable prose. But the larger point is that reasonable people have disagreed about the ideal length for articles like this and it's a judgment call, not some kind of regulation. I, for one, do not think it is too long now. Tvoz | talk 03:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] I think what Ottava is ultimately looking for is a strong policy-level limit on article size. Such a limit will never be implemented on Wikipedia, because (a) long articles are not always bad, (b) an article's quality is not a function of its length, and (c) size needs to be taken into consideration with other concerns, such as NPOV and sourcing. Remember the words of WP:SIZE itself: "No need for haste". szyslak ( t) 21:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[out] Ottava Rima, Your dismissive and uncollegial attitude doesn't really merit a response, but I'll take one more stab at it. And thanks, but I won't be leaving Wikipedia or this article any more than I expect Wasted Time R will, certainly not at your behest.
We have a lot to contend with on this article, from well-meaning editors who have differing views of what is notable, to partisan warriors, to roving bands of trolls and vandals, and most of the time we manage to work out compromises and reach consensus about the article content and it is usually fairly stable. If that means that the article might be a little bit longer than the guidelines recommend, so be it. This subject is a complex individual who has a long and varied career and life to be presented in this biography, and most of us approach it with an open mind and attempt to be fair, comprehensive, and even get some decent writing in there. At this point I do not see any additional section that should be forked off to satisfy a size concern that you have. Unfortunately you may not have meant it to be this way but your comments have not been helpful in this process, as you have chosen to attack the editors and hold on rigidly to your preconceived notion of what the "rules" are. As I said, please weigh in at the FAC that the article is not ready for featuring because we don't slavishly follow the size guidelines but do be accurate as in fact Bobblehead and I independently showed you that the article's readable prose is 59K (I had it at 60 and realized I forgot to remove the headers, so my count also shows now as 59K). Or don't be accurate - doesn't matter. Have your say, and we'll see what the FA people decide. But stop harrassing and insulting the editors here. If you don't have anything new to add, I don't plan on responding to any more of your screeds here that make the same point over and over. Others may have more stamina than I do for this. Tvoz | talk 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
|
Don't want to add anything to the article as it may be seen as irrelevant, however, is it worth mentioning her "wrestling match" against Barack Obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazzeee ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Many of the notes feature trivia in them. This is not really acceptable under MoS. The following are part of the trivia:
If this information is important, it must go into the article. Also, much of this information is not important to summaries of the topic and are better served in the main article that discusses them. Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Where did the information go of her being on the board of walmart, as well as the controversy she caused among unions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVpPGxuafA http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/hillary_clintons_walmart_years/ -- Waxsin ( talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Her being on the Wal-mart board is mentioned in the introduction:
and is discussed in-depth in the "Later Arkansas years" section:
In fact, cite 112 is the ABC News story that is you referenced. Satisfactory? Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"In the 2008 presidential nomination race, Clinton has won the most primaries and delegates of any woman in U.S. history."
Compared to who? 71.68.15.63 ( talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) This has a long article history to it. What we're trying to get across is, she's the first woman ever to run for president in the U.S. who had a real chance of winning (even if she didn't eventually win). That's very notable. Our trying to say this has been through three or four different formulations so far, with earlier incarnations objected to once Obama passed her, and then another objected to when this obscure "win" by Chisholm was discovered. This is the current formulation. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Pethr, please discuss content changes here before cutting stuff. There's a rationale for everything that's in the article, and it at least merits some discussion before removal.
Regarding the role of her parents, in that era it was not automatic at all that parents would encourage girls to pursue careers and goals of their choosing. Many just wanted their daughters to get married and start families, nothing else. Hillary owes a lot to her parents, both her mother and her father, who in other respects was very conservative (in the non-political sense) but in this respect was not. So this merits inclusion. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, with content edits, it's best to keep them separate, so that we can change one without affecting the other. I think "faculty" is better than "professors" because the former term encompasses teachers who may not be professors in a strict term, but who are relevant to hiring goals, diversity, etc. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wasted Time R, I will reply here as it is about the article and not any sort of dispute or whatever. The point about AP is that they don't publish the story. The content is changed (edited) before published on other websites and in fact many stories or parts of them come from syndicated sources without any acknolegment on Wikipedia and rightly so. There is no reason to mention AP as a publisher because they don't publish the story, it is not part of their work or periodical and their author is correctly cited when known. It is in fact a mistake to leave it this way. If you were writing an academic paper you would either find the original stroy on AP website (which may not be possible) or cited author and publisher of website where you have found that information. The same applies to Wikipedia. May be I'm missing something, please tell me what you mean. Thank you for all the work on this article! I think it can be made into FA with a little more work.-- Pethr ( talk) 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought she only won by about 8.5 points, not 10.
funny, considering that she said she HAD to win at least by at least 10 percentage points to stay in the race. so she's just being stubborn.
[editorializing elided] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.41.51 ( talk) 05:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I Wayne Wilson A Town OF Rhodhiss Commissioner would love to Invite you to our very small town with the big heart. We have a lot of history that I belive would be of interest to you. For one the first American Flag on the moon material was woven here at the old mill. In 1982 the Mills shut down . However the town has survied and will keep going . This is a town of less then 900. That helps one another when they need something . A town that stays as one . The town was found in 1901 by George Hiss and John Rhods . They started the Mill town with one mill on the Caldwell county side . In 1916 they built a second Mill on the Burke county side of town . You just need to log on to the Town of Rhodhiss web site and you will see a lot of great things past and Now . Thank You Commissioner Wayne Wilson 828-443-6503 or wwilson@roosterbush.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.118.225 ( talk) 02:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Why no mention of Vincent Foster and his strange death? Erectile Dysfunctional ( talk) 13:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The following new section was just added to the article:
Hillary Clinton has described herself as a Methodist [1] and has stated the Methodist church she attended as a youth gave her the opportunity to expand [her] horizons". [2] For fifteen years she has been part of a secretive religious group called "the Fellowship", whose congregants consist of heavy political players. The group was established in the 1930s by a Methodist evangelist named Abraham Vereide and is currently led by Doug Coe. In 2005, TIME Magazine named Coe as one of the 25 most powerful evangelicals, calling him "the Stealth Persuader." [3] [4] In 1993, journalist Jeff Sharlet went undercover to learn about the Fellowship, who he described as "secret theocrats" and as having "traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries" and various dictators. Sharlet quotes Coe as saying, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't", and says that the group's leaders "consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride". In her autobiography Living History, Hillary Clinton described Coe as "a genuinely loving spiritual mentor" who "became a source of strength and friendship" for her during her more difficult years as first lady. [5] [6] [7]
I've followed up some of the sources, and I have to say that I find the above account rather misleading. All the more so as the same NBC article that is the main source for the above (to the extent in fact of being plagiarized) also includes the following: "Asked about Coe’s influence on Hillary Clinton, people close to her told NBC News that she does not consider him one of her leading spiritual advisors. They added that Senator Clinton has never contributed to Coe’s group, is not a member of The Fellowship and has never heard the sermons obtained by NBC News. And, they said, Doug Coe is not Hillary Clinton’s minister."
I suggest a revert. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, hold on there a moment. It sounds like what you are doing is bowlderizing. And, to try to avoid trouble, it sounds like what Clinton's "people close to her" were doing is backing away from statements Clinton herself made earlier. There is a contradiction here between Hillary earlier and those "close supporters" later! The contradiction needs to be described. The whole section should not be simply removed. Cryptographic hash ( talk) 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have done the above. So what we now have, in the main bio part of the article as is appropriate, is:
The same cites that the "Religion" section was using on HRC's relationship with The Fellowship — Mother Jones article, The Atlantic article, NBC News story — are being used here. This is the right way to do it, in the context of how this article works, as I've explained above. I've thus removed the "Religion" section; it's now partly inappropriate (describing Coe and the fellowship) and partly superfluous (now that the main bio material covers HRC's relationship to them). Wasted Time R ( talk) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Looking at all edits on this matter, I'm out of reverts ... hopefully others will weigh in. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedias bios are here for notable people, and NOTABLE information regarding them. The media hasn't covered any of this except in passing, no large or credible organizations are talking about this, there has been no incident. Adding that content doesn't make sense any more than adding her shoe size or a clip of her laugh. Just because the media has talked about it (again, not much) doesn't make it noteworthy. Stop smearing, and try to be useful. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 04:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
A follow-up: User:Ewenss, who added this "Religion" section, User:Cryptographic hash, who argued for it here and did reversions to it, and User:CyberAnth, who did additional reversions to it, have all turned out to be one big sockpuppet and have been indefinitely blocked. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As of 5-8-2008 8:10p.m. there was picture of a walrus in place of Hillary's Picture... Please someone look farther in to this 76.26.73.193 ( talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Jonn1234
Main article: Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors LESBIAN!!!! Clinton has received over a dozen awards and honors during her career, from both American and international organizations, for her activities concerning health, women, and children".
This word does not belong in this section. Throckmorton Guildersleeve ( talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
93% in, shes beating obama by 40 points, wow. We need sources for that. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 04:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
| ||
---|---|---|
Pre-presidency 44th President of the United States First term Second term Post-presidency Publications Personal ![]() |
||
This biography of Hillary's list of subarticles
(viz., Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors, and List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton)
---lacks an initial installment about the
Early Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton
without which it cannot gel into a sequential series analogous with the ones for Barack ------ >
| ||
---|---|---|
|
||
![]() ![]() | ||
---and Mac. ------ >
Yet, since the constituent articles in so very many series are actually more nonsequential than not (as in, e/g, -Effects of the Sept. 11 Attacks, -Perpetrators of the Sept. 11 Attacks, -Victims of the Sept. 11 Attacks, etc.), maybe the existing components of "Hillary" subarticles are sufficient to merit their comprising a series. Any feedback? — Justmeherenow ( ) 15:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
| ||
---|---|---|
First Lady of the United States
U.S. Senator from New York
U.S. Secretary of State
2008 presidential campaign 2016 presidential campaign Organizations
![]() |
||
Readers of main articles habitually look for series' navigation template towards the articles' upper right, yet the Rodham Clinton biographical series includes two somewhat replicated navigation templates, one that is specifically for the series towards the upper right and another one that is more inclusive of more tangential links as a banner along the bottom. Perusing the example of a main articles cited at WP:SUMMARY, World War II, for guidance, we see at the upper right a navigational template linking to its constituent subarticles, while there is also a template at the bottom of World War II containing all the WP articles about the many World War II military campaigns. However, as its example of a navigation box to subarticles, WP:SUMMARY gives the Isaac Newton biographical series, whose only template specifically related to Newton is a sidebar nav box towards the upper right.
So, if we're to be guided by both WP informal practice and its formal guidelines, we can choose to either
I think this is the largest scam of all president families, even though Bush cheated on his election either. Many media report and several rounds of court involved! they even had a website for this case: http://www.paulvclinton.com/ and many Youtube video for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.12.36 ( talk) 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw on Google.com that Hilary Clinton is a distant cousin to Angelina Jolie 9th cousins once removed to be exact I mean thats what the Google website said anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 ( talk) 01:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I don`t know? and plus what does Jennifer care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 ( talk) 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else consider the current choice of photo unflattering? To me it has the deer-in-the-headlights look of the end of a long photo-shoot---emotionless eyes above a tensely-held Pepsodent smile. There are surely more flattering photos of her than that in the public domain, though if the lapel pin is a requirement that might narrow the choices. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have seen a noticable reduction in posting activity on blogs and this Wiki page regarding the 2008 Democrat primary. Thank goodness. The folks were getting way too dramatic and passionate for quite some time. Maybe ... just maybe ... we can begin discussing the national issues instead of posturing ... but then again ... I still believe in the tooth-fairy ... but "there is always hope" (Aragorn, LOTR) ... Oxfordden ( talk) 02:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
"In the 2008 presidential nomination race, Clinton succeeded in winning more primaries and delegates than any other woman in U.S. history." How many other women have run in primaries as a presidential nominee? The entire introduction needs citation as it smacks of her campaign... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.217.196 ( talk) 11:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks for helping with this article... and you got in the Star Ledger... and at least one Wikipedia editor noticed :) — Rickyrab | Talk 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is there zero mention in this article of the lawsuit Paul v. Clinton, Clinton's involvement and dealings with Peter F. Paul, and the controversy surrounding Gala Hollywood Farewell Salute to President Clinton ? This should be covered, probably in at least a paragraph or so. Cirt ( talk) 06:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Mailaccount added Image:Hrcofficial.jpg to the article, Bobblehead reverted on the grounds "Image pixilated and out of focus. Looks like it was blown up from a thumbnail.", Mailaccount added again, I reverted, now TiusP has put it back in again. I'd be fine with using this image if it were of passable quality, but I agree with Bobblehead that it isn't. Other opinions welcome. Wasted Time R ( talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed Image:Hrcofficial.jpg from "Senate election of 2000", where it was last placed, per this discussion. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, I downloaded the image of Clinton's signature, tried to remove the JPEG artifacts, and enhanced the image. I was bold and overwrote the original file, as I felt that there was no way that my enhancements would be controversial. I then reconsidered and posted this here to see what you all think. My version is in the article now. If you think my alterations are not an improvement, please say so, and I will see if I can fix them. Thanks. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"After Super Tuesday, Obama won the eleven remaining February primaries and caucuses.[85] Obama and Clinton split delegates and states nearly equally in Vermont, Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island.[86]"
This is a section taken from the obama page, ive raised the issue there too. Im quite sure Obama won vermont before the others were called for Clinton, technically, for an hour or so, obama had a 12 consecutive lead. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 19:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The delegates from F and M have been counted, with a few mathematical adjustments to ensure Obama keeps the delegate lead. Clinton gets quite a lot more delegates than obama but it wont be enough. That means however she now takes the lead in the popular vote. We can get the sources together and decide how to word it all. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Being a true greenhorn to this process of editing and even submitting, I am leaving a comment based on my comparisons between the Obama Wikipedia page and HR Clinton Wikipedia page: Just bare with me, as I jump in to say, I notice the same subtle forms of sexism throughout culture when looking at the lives of most men and women that seems to survive over time. The contrast of information emphasis makes for shocking observation. Yet, the point valid to consider here is that as a woman, Hillary's individual behaviors, remarks, appearance, things of this nature are examined within a resource, from which many have come to expect a lucid and socially conscious standard. Hillary fulfills an active political and legal career(s) that deserve examination based on her professional accomplishments by the same standards assumed to provide in the examination of Obama's career. Has anyone talked about his eye color? His height? Has anyone examined his remarks as socially unacceptable? Looked at whether he bakes, what he dresses, or how his hair is styled? In other words, Hillary's professional life is looked on as a noun; an object with not too subtle hints of negativity. Where as Obama's professional life as been assumed to be viewed in action; as a verb! Can you all reexamine any and all unconsciously conditioned assumptions and the motives for those assumptions? If nothing else, this sort of willingness to self-reflect can continue to reveal a professional depth at Wikipedia that has earned respect. This is the first time that I have experienced such glaringly unacceptable disparity in the treatment of subject matter. I put to you all then, in information gathering and assembling for reference, it is not about unchecked obsession of personalities or one's deep-seated, subjective reactions to such, now is it?```` Cette façon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cette façon ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)