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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I'm guessing that she wasn't born a Clinton. Someone want to throw in a bit about her maiden name? -- Dante Alighieri 10:02 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Notice that her own widely-read book is not mentioned in References. And look at the reference that is there. Who's behind all this elaborate smear? "Anti=semitism"? Accused by whom? why? I wouldn't edit this entry on a dare... [[Wetman}
I agree - I also think this run-on should be deleted, but fear editing it. "The state and nature of their marriage has been the subject of much speculation, with some claiming it is a purely political arrangement and widespread stories about their regular arguments, but the fact remains that they have remained together (and whilst spending extended periods apart still vacation together, apparently) long after the political necessity for the marriage to stay together passed." I think it's repetitive of the sentence before, and somewhat inappropriate. Piha 17:21, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Question: has Hillary done anything noteworthy as a senator yet? -- Robert Merkel 01:09 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)
It says in the article that she campaigned heavily in Upstate New York. She campaigned in heavily Democratic areas of New York, like Albany, but the traditionally Republican areas in Upstate New York really didn't have a candidate: Lazio is a RINO; he likes government-run social programs, he supports abortion, he's antigun, etc. I remember reading in the Press & Sun-Bulletin (a Binghamton-area newspaper), that her campaign aides had determined that downstate was such an easy sell for her, that she only needed around 30% of the vote in Upstate. (I think she got 32% or so in my county
Wolfman, obviously I don't object to the editing in principle, and you and I have made some opposite kinds of edits to other political articles, with an appropriate degree of attention to NPOV, but I think with respect to your changes to my Senate section Edit, you kept the facts I inserted that were favorable to Sen. Clinton (ie, "Two-thirds of the voters dismissed the carpetbagging issue,") but removed much of the factual information that portrayed her in a negative light (specifically, the objective fact that she returned a $50,000 campaign donation from the Muslim group accused of terrorist connections, and the kissing of Arafat's wife). These events actually figured into the campaign and they are actual facts, not POV. And I was careful I thought to avoid implying that these events were evidence of anything (which is a POV), I just stated the fact that they were part of the Republican attacks on her, which is objective. I'd appreciate some reply but I'll give it some time before attempting to revise my section. Kaisershatner 16:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See [1] -- Jia ng 01:37, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This page doesn't mention Whitewater or her role in the health care plan, two of the things she's most famous for. Also, some of the prose is fairly fawning; e.g., "the two were soon inseperable--partners in moot court, political campaigns, and matters of the heart". Needs a neutral party to go over this and add facts, NPOV. I don't know enough to do it. Meelar 19:55, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Again, if you feel it is NPOV, add the White Water and healtcare section. It is not that hard, it is on the Bill Clinton page.
ChrisDJackson
Well, as I said, I don't really know enough about this topic, I was just drawing attention to this for others who might be able to help the article. Meelar 20:03, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I dispute the neutrality of this page. Do I know enough to fix it? Not really. But even so, you have no right to remove the header. Thank you. Meelar 20:19, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please do not remove the Neutrality Dispute header. I'm in the process of finding people to correct this, but you have no right to remove it. Meelar 21:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I removed Hillary's signature from the page. If it's going to be re-added, at least put it off to the side with a caption. As it was it looked like an attempt at making it look like she signed the page. But since I'm not sure her signature is relevant in the first place, I removed it rather than fixing it. anthony (see warning) 21:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Bill is not a "cowboy name", it's just the more common form. Clinton himself goes by Bill in his everyday life; when he signed legislation, he signed with Bill; our article on him is at Bill Clinton, with William Clinton as a redirect. In light of all this, I've changed it back. Cordially, Meelar 15:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
check white house website
i don`t care how did monica lewinsky called him but i know that if i do a search of white house website for bill clinton i will find nothing except william redirection. so he has nickname BILL but officially his name is William. We can even say that bvut not just bill because this is not a party this is encyclopedia.
Avala 10:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name. His most common name is Bill. Jimmy Carter's most common name is Jimmy. We use what they're known as. Rick K 10:10, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
i thought this was serious project!
--
Perhaps you don't know how names work. You see, many people have longwinded formal names, and short forms that are universally used as their actual name. For example, Tony Blair, the current Prime Minister of the UK, is actually named Anthony Blair: Tony is a nickname for Anthony. It would be ridiculous to refer to him as Anthony Blair however, because that's not the name he uses except in overly formal settings. -- Delirium 23:45, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
I've just done some googling, and the only reference I can find to Hillary having a master's degree is wikipedi and its fork. Official bios only mention undergrad at Wellesley and Yale Law School. Any source for this? Radicalsubversiv 22:54, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Her official website, perhaps? BTW...the one in which she refers to herself as...Hillary RODHAM Clinton, and not Hillary Clinton? BTW...am digging to do some serious attempt to correct the Future? section. This is really questionable in terms of NPOV. Best regards, allie 00:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
hi, i reverted your last edit to hillary clinton. the edit summary was 'speculative & pov'. i don't mean that you are actively attempting to insert pov, and later wished i could edit the summary. but you can't. what i really objected to was the phrasing 'liability' not 'controversial'. as to speculative, i suppose what i really object to is the whole section. it seems bizarre to dedicate a section about a possible run by someone who has no stated intention of running. Wolfman 02:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
can we perhaps attribute the comment to a particular party then? are we also allowed to repeat the prominent criticism (also without strong evidence) that Bush is a cokehead? the Clinton is a rapist? that Bush got a girl pregnant and paid for her abortion? may I drudge up unsourced speculation as to Reagan's relationship with Nancy (and there is plenty)? Is this a rumor-mongering operation or an encyclopedia? Wolfman 18:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not saying I'm necessarily attached to that particular phrasing, but I believe the criticism to be a significant part of that leveled against her. I say this because it frequently comes up in conversations with friends of mine who aren't as supportive of her as I am. It's an urban legend, yes, but a significant one that many people nonetheless attach to her, and one that we'll be unable to conclusively address, except by stating her public actions and statements. I believe the information should be included in some form. Respectfully yours, [[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]] 21:36, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the kind comments; I'm glad that my best efforts at neutrality appear to be working out. As for your comments, I think the difference is that this is speculation is often made; for example, a portrayal of it was included in Primary Colors (an excellent book, incidentally), which is hardly a right-wing rag. The fact is that confronted with the facts of their married life as we know them, this is a common speculation for people to make; what's a neutral way for us to include this in the article?
On a minorly related note, I feel the article could in fact use some expansion as to why she was so controversial; being too young for most of Clinton's presidency, I pretty much missed out on the accusations of murder and so on. The article could definitely use more about why she inspired such hatred; in the Presidential Bid section, it says "At the same time, she remains a controversial figure, which might reduce her attractiveness as a candidate", but from the rest of the article, this is not clearly explained. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]] 23:31, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Added a link to the Village Voice with an article about her connection to Wal-Mart, which adds light to her attitude towards the working class. The content of the article could be summarized for the wikipedia article. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0021/harkavy.php Whyerd 13:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that some mention of her connection to Wal-Mart needs to be mentioned in this entry. Also, not mentioned in that Village Voice article was her role in Wal-mart's attempts to get an exemption from federal minimum wage laws. User:GiveBlood
This sentence is at the bottom of the paragraph, recently added:
I am not sure what this means. How can a fundraising event *cost* $1.2 million? Do you mean...it *raised* $1.2 million? Did Rosen report his *own contributions of $400,000, or did he pad the numbers? What citations, please? allie 15:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have just removed:
Ethnicity plays a factor in all American elections, and Democrats almost always win these kinds of majorities about Jewish and African American voters. Unless we're going to include a full breakdown of the vote by demographic subgroups, which strikes me as unnecessary, I think this kind of statement only serves to make POV insinuations about "ethnic" voters and Clinton's victory. Also, we need to cite a specific exit poll for: "over two-thirds of voters dismissed the 'carpetbagging' issue as unimportant" RadicalSubversiv E 06:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC
my oops re: citations. allie 08:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Noticed you already tracked my editing changes. Thanx for reverts. The exit poll data is listed in the citations (which I conveniently deleted yesterday, thank you very much). Much more careful about listing all editing & summaries, if you noticed...hope that helps. Done for the day. Best Regards, allie 19:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
At this point, there are certainly plently listed in this article. However, they're all over the place, and not necessarily in order. Whitewater pops up while she's in Arkansas, when it was actually more relevant in the context of when she was First Lady. How about a new section, "Controversial Issues" in a chronological format? Name it any way you want - but it's beginning to look like a better way to approach it for the sake of formatting the article. Any comments? In addition, I did try to include something about her contributions as Senator, but the headings were deleted. Certainly, there is something that can be summarized to retain a NPOV??? allie 01:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
restored the sub-heading part and clarified because it doesn't relate to her official duties as First Lady of Arkansas. Salazar 03:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
MERC isn't a starndard abbreviation - it doesn't link to any of the exchange sites/which one? Chicago or New York? Thanks. allie 20:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looking at other articles, this one seems unique in that most of the references to the subject just use the first name. I am thinking of changing all of the sentences that start "Hillary..." to start "Mrs. Clinton...". Does anyone have any other opinions? Morris 20:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Why is it not mentioned anywhere that Hillary Clinton was on the Walmart Board of Directors while down in Arkansas? I think this is an important pieice of information and I know know if it has been left off because of the distaste her party, the Demcratic Party, has for Walmart or it was just a general over sight? -- Nick Berardi 15:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If course Clinton's margin in the 2000 election was a disappointment. A significant percentage of Democrats who voted for Gore as President voted against Clinton for Senate. What was predicted was that she would win by a margin similar to Gore, she failed to achieve that - falling well short of the margin. In reality, she should have finished ahead of Gore since her opponent was not very well-known and a last-minute replacement.-- JonGwynne 03:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are flat-out wrong. Even though New York State votes solidly for Democrats in presidential races, our races for governors and senators have a different dynamic. Look at how Sen. D'Amato won three terms! Gov. Pataki won also won three terms, the last two in landslides. Hillary did not have the power of incumbency. How can you say Hillary was expected to finish ahead of Gore?! Find me a predicition that said that Hillary was expected to win by a margin similar to Gore. I looked. This is what I found: Preliminary surveys already demonstrate that this race will be among the most closely contested campaigns in the country. From the early 11 percentage point lead Clinton enjoyed in February (53 to 42 percent) has come a race that now is deadlocked. A late March, 1999 survey by Marist College gave Clinton a 48 to 45.5 percent advantage over Giuliani, while a late April, 1999 poll by the New York Post puts the Mayor ahead of the First Lady by 46 to 42 percent. A confidential White House survey in May showed the First Lady leading Giuliani by only two percentage points, according to a May 20, 1999 NBC News report. Again, you are just flat-out wrong. -- Justy329 14:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Per current Wikipedia policy, as claimed by jguk to have been adopted by a prior consensus, I am prefixing the formal style The Honorable to the present biographical entry. Do not revert this edit unless you can dispute the existing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) policy regarding Honorific Prefixes, and the entry on Style (manner of address) containing examples.
Please note that it is my preference that the prefixed style not be used, however if it is used in some cases (such as for The Right Honourable Tony Blair) but not for others (such as Senator Hillary Clinton) then this may constitute improper POV by the Wikipedia community. Because of the existing division of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this policy, a survey is currently being conducted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles in which I encourage you to participate. While the same style should be applied to all sitting Senators and Representatives, I am trying not to make a huge number of edits while the survey results are pending. Nonetheless, it is presumed current policy and should be observed until changed. Whig 07:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The Vince Foster section was wholly removed with the following comment; "one-sided speculation that's covered in depth in the vince foster article)".
The reader should not be completely deprived of any mention of the controversy for this reason. Providing mention with less emphasis (no longer an independent section) and link to page with more detail is appropriate per Gamaliel's comment. I have made it so. plain_regular_ham 14:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I have update the Foster references. I think that they adhere to all existing standards. plain_regular_ham 17:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Mrs. Clinton's brother Hugh Rodham obtained presidential pardons for Carlos Vignali, Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell, sparking a controversy in some circles over the money Hugh Rodham received for the deal.
If this is relevant enough to warrant inclusion, it will need to be given context and explanation. Who are these guys, what did they do, and why is it mentioned here? The sentence seems like it would fit better in Hugh's article. Mr. Billion 08:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
==Picture++ This does not look like a picture of Hillary to me, Ms. Lewniski should be on her own page. 20 May 2005
This page reads like a nightmarish post from freerepublic.com. It is a whole page of Hillary-bashing. As a reputable encyclopedia, how can we talk about Vince Foster or other non-issues raised by the Right-Wing Conspiracy. Her 10-point landslide win is even told to be not acceptable because it was less than Gore's margin. That's hogwash.
Why don't we talk about how Hillary fought for teacher testing as first lady, or spoke out for woman's rights in China, or worked to expand children's health coverage, or her tireless work on the Armed Service Committee, or the 20 billion dollars she helped secure to rebuild after 9/11? Her poll numbers are through the roof!! She has a 69% approval rating and a 49% approval rating among NY Republicans.
My point it, this page is mostly untrue, unfair, negative attacks on Sen. Clinton, rather than an objective look at that work that Hillary has done throughout her life. I will attach a NPOV to this article, as I want the whole article re-written.
I will not re-write it myself because I admit that I'm not neutral. I love Hillary. That's why I urge Right-Wing members to not edit the page either. We need someone who is fair and honest to do so. -- Justy329 01:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I will remove my NPOV tag, as someone added a description of her senate career. that's all I wanted. -- Justy329 15:45, 18 Jun 2005 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I'm guessing that she wasn't born a Clinton. Someone want to throw in a bit about her maiden name? -- Dante Alighieri 10:02 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Notice that her own widely-read book is not mentioned in References. And look at the reference that is there. Who's behind all this elaborate smear? "Anti=semitism"? Accused by whom? why? I wouldn't edit this entry on a dare... [[Wetman}
I agree - I also think this run-on should be deleted, but fear editing it. "The state and nature of their marriage has been the subject of much speculation, with some claiming it is a purely political arrangement and widespread stories about their regular arguments, but the fact remains that they have remained together (and whilst spending extended periods apart still vacation together, apparently) long after the political necessity for the marriage to stay together passed." I think it's repetitive of the sentence before, and somewhat inappropriate. Piha 17:21, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Question: has Hillary done anything noteworthy as a senator yet? -- Robert Merkel 01:09 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)
It says in the article that she campaigned heavily in Upstate New York. She campaigned in heavily Democratic areas of New York, like Albany, but the traditionally Republican areas in Upstate New York really didn't have a candidate: Lazio is a RINO; he likes government-run social programs, he supports abortion, he's antigun, etc. I remember reading in the Press & Sun-Bulletin (a Binghamton-area newspaper), that her campaign aides had determined that downstate was such an easy sell for her, that she only needed around 30% of the vote in Upstate. (I think she got 32% or so in my county
Wolfman, obviously I don't object to the editing in principle, and you and I have made some opposite kinds of edits to other political articles, with an appropriate degree of attention to NPOV, but I think with respect to your changes to my Senate section Edit, you kept the facts I inserted that were favorable to Sen. Clinton (ie, "Two-thirds of the voters dismissed the carpetbagging issue,") but removed much of the factual information that portrayed her in a negative light (specifically, the objective fact that she returned a $50,000 campaign donation from the Muslim group accused of terrorist connections, and the kissing of Arafat's wife). These events actually figured into the campaign and they are actual facts, not POV. And I was careful I thought to avoid implying that these events were evidence of anything (which is a POV), I just stated the fact that they were part of the Republican attacks on her, which is objective. I'd appreciate some reply but I'll give it some time before attempting to revise my section. Kaisershatner 16:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See [1] -- Jia ng 01:37, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This page doesn't mention Whitewater or her role in the health care plan, two of the things she's most famous for. Also, some of the prose is fairly fawning; e.g., "the two were soon inseperable--partners in moot court, political campaigns, and matters of the heart". Needs a neutral party to go over this and add facts, NPOV. I don't know enough to do it. Meelar 19:55, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Again, if you feel it is NPOV, add the White Water and healtcare section. It is not that hard, it is on the Bill Clinton page.
ChrisDJackson
Well, as I said, I don't really know enough about this topic, I was just drawing attention to this for others who might be able to help the article. Meelar 20:03, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I dispute the neutrality of this page. Do I know enough to fix it? Not really. But even so, you have no right to remove the header. Thank you. Meelar 20:19, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please do not remove the Neutrality Dispute header. I'm in the process of finding people to correct this, but you have no right to remove it. Meelar 21:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I removed Hillary's signature from the page. If it's going to be re-added, at least put it off to the side with a caption. As it was it looked like an attempt at making it look like she signed the page. But since I'm not sure her signature is relevant in the first place, I removed it rather than fixing it. anthony (see warning) 21:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Bill is not a "cowboy name", it's just the more common form. Clinton himself goes by Bill in his everyday life; when he signed legislation, he signed with Bill; our article on him is at Bill Clinton, with William Clinton as a redirect. In light of all this, I've changed it back. Cordially, Meelar 15:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
check white house website
i don`t care how did monica lewinsky called him but i know that if i do a search of white house website for bill clinton i will find nothing except william redirection. so he has nickname BILL but officially his name is William. We can even say that bvut not just bill because this is not a party this is encyclopedia.
Avala 10:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name. His most common name is Bill. Jimmy Carter's most common name is Jimmy. We use what they're known as. Rick K 10:10, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
i thought this was serious project!
--
Perhaps you don't know how names work. You see, many people have longwinded formal names, and short forms that are universally used as their actual name. For example, Tony Blair, the current Prime Minister of the UK, is actually named Anthony Blair: Tony is a nickname for Anthony. It would be ridiculous to refer to him as Anthony Blair however, because that's not the name he uses except in overly formal settings. -- Delirium 23:45, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
I've just done some googling, and the only reference I can find to Hillary having a master's degree is wikipedi and its fork. Official bios only mention undergrad at Wellesley and Yale Law School. Any source for this? Radicalsubversiv 22:54, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Her official website, perhaps? BTW...the one in which she refers to herself as...Hillary RODHAM Clinton, and not Hillary Clinton? BTW...am digging to do some serious attempt to correct the Future? section. This is really questionable in terms of NPOV. Best regards, allie 00:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
hi, i reverted your last edit to hillary clinton. the edit summary was 'speculative & pov'. i don't mean that you are actively attempting to insert pov, and later wished i could edit the summary. but you can't. what i really objected to was the phrasing 'liability' not 'controversial'. as to speculative, i suppose what i really object to is the whole section. it seems bizarre to dedicate a section about a possible run by someone who has no stated intention of running. Wolfman 02:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
can we perhaps attribute the comment to a particular party then? are we also allowed to repeat the prominent criticism (also without strong evidence) that Bush is a cokehead? the Clinton is a rapist? that Bush got a girl pregnant and paid for her abortion? may I drudge up unsourced speculation as to Reagan's relationship with Nancy (and there is plenty)? Is this a rumor-mongering operation or an encyclopedia? Wolfman 18:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not saying I'm necessarily attached to that particular phrasing, but I believe the criticism to be a significant part of that leveled against her. I say this because it frequently comes up in conversations with friends of mine who aren't as supportive of her as I am. It's an urban legend, yes, but a significant one that many people nonetheless attach to her, and one that we'll be unable to conclusively address, except by stating her public actions and statements. I believe the information should be included in some form. Respectfully yours, [[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]] 21:36, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the kind comments; I'm glad that my best efforts at neutrality appear to be working out. As for your comments, I think the difference is that this is speculation is often made; for example, a portrayal of it was included in Primary Colors (an excellent book, incidentally), which is hardly a right-wing rag. The fact is that confronted with the facts of their married life as we know them, this is a common speculation for people to make; what's a neutral way for us to include this in the article?
On a minorly related note, I feel the article could in fact use some expansion as to why she was so controversial; being too young for most of Clinton's presidency, I pretty much missed out on the accusations of murder and so on. The article could definitely use more about why she inspired such hatred; in the Presidential Bid section, it says "At the same time, she remains a controversial figure, which might reduce her attractiveness as a candidate", but from the rest of the article, this is not clearly explained. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]] 23:31, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Added a link to the Village Voice with an article about her connection to Wal-Mart, which adds light to her attitude towards the working class. The content of the article could be summarized for the wikipedia article. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0021/harkavy.php Whyerd 13:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that some mention of her connection to Wal-Mart needs to be mentioned in this entry. Also, not mentioned in that Village Voice article was her role in Wal-mart's attempts to get an exemption from federal minimum wage laws. User:GiveBlood
This sentence is at the bottom of the paragraph, recently added:
I am not sure what this means. How can a fundraising event *cost* $1.2 million? Do you mean...it *raised* $1.2 million? Did Rosen report his *own contributions of $400,000, or did he pad the numbers? What citations, please? allie 15:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have just removed:
Ethnicity plays a factor in all American elections, and Democrats almost always win these kinds of majorities about Jewish and African American voters. Unless we're going to include a full breakdown of the vote by demographic subgroups, which strikes me as unnecessary, I think this kind of statement only serves to make POV insinuations about "ethnic" voters and Clinton's victory. Also, we need to cite a specific exit poll for: "over two-thirds of voters dismissed the 'carpetbagging' issue as unimportant" RadicalSubversiv E 06:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC
my oops re: citations. allie 08:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Noticed you already tracked my editing changes. Thanx for reverts. The exit poll data is listed in the citations (which I conveniently deleted yesterday, thank you very much). Much more careful about listing all editing & summaries, if you noticed...hope that helps. Done for the day. Best Regards, allie 19:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
At this point, there are certainly plently listed in this article. However, they're all over the place, and not necessarily in order. Whitewater pops up while she's in Arkansas, when it was actually more relevant in the context of when she was First Lady. How about a new section, "Controversial Issues" in a chronological format? Name it any way you want - but it's beginning to look like a better way to approach it for the sake of formatting the article. Any comments? In addition, I did try to include something about her contributions as Senator, but the headings were deleted. Certainly, there is something that can be summarized to retain a NPOV??? allie 01:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
restored the sub-heading part and clarified because it doesn't relate to her official duties as First Lady of Arkansas. Salazar 03:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
MERC isn't a starndard abbreviation - it doesn't link to any of the exchange sites/which one? Chicago or New York? Thanks. allie 20:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looking at other articles, this one seems unique in that most of the references to the subject just use the first name. I am thinking of changing all of the sentences that start "Hillary..." to start "Mrs. Clinton...". Does anyone have any other opinions? Morris 20:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Why is it not mentioned anywhere that Hillary Clinton was on the Walmart Board of Directors while down in Arkansas? I think this is an important pieice of information and I know know if it has been left off because of the distaste her party, the Demcratic Party, has for Walmart or it was just a general over sight? -- Nick Berardi 15:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If course Clinton's margin in the 2000 election was a disappointment. A significant percentage of Democrats who voted for Gore as President voted against Clinton for Senate. What was predicted was that she would win by a margin similar to Gore, she failed to achieve that - falling well short of the margin. In reality, she should have finished ahead of Gore since her opponent was not very well-known and a last-minute replacement.-- JonGwynne 03:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are flat-out wrong. Even though New York State votes solidly for Democrats in presidential races, our races for governors and senators have a different dynamic. Look at how Sen. D'Amato won three terms! Gov. Pataki won also won three terms, the last two in landslides. Hillary did not have the power of incumbency. How can you say Hillary was expected to finish ahead of Gore?! Find me a predicition that said that Hillary was expected to win by a margin similar to Gore. I looked. This is what I found: Preliminary surveys already demonstrate that this race will be among the most closely contested campaigns in the country. From the early 11 percentage point lead Clinton enjoyed in February (53 to 42 percent) has come a race that now is deadlocked. A late March, 1999 survey by Marist College gave Clinton a 48 to 45.5 percent advantage over Giuliani, while a late April, 1999 poll by the New York Post puts the Mayor ahead of the First Lady by 46 to 42 percent. A confidential White House survey in May showed the First Lady leading Giuliani by only two percentage points, according to a May 20, 1999 NBC News report. Again, you are just flat-out wrong. -- Justy329 14:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Per current Wikipedia policy, as claimed by jguk to have been adopted by a prior consensus, I am prefixing the formal style The Honorable to the present biographical entry. Do not revert this edit unless you can dispute the existing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) policy regarding Honorific Prefixes, and the entry on Style (manner of address) containing examples.
Please note that it is my preference that the prefixed style not be used, however if it is used in some cases (such as for The Right Honourable Tony Blair) but not for others (such as Senator Hillary Clinton) then this may constitute improper POV by the Wikipedia community. Because of the existing division of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this policy, a survey is currently being conducted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles in which I encourage you to participate. While the same style should be applied to all sitting Senators and Representatives, I am trying not to make a huge number of edits while the survey results are pending. Nonetheless, it is presumed current policy and should be observed until changed. Whig 07:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The Vince Foster section was wholly removed with the following comment; "one-sided speculation that's covered in depth in the vince foster article)".
The reader should not be completely deprived of any mention of the controversy for this reason. Providing mention with less emphasis (no longer an independent section) and link to page with more detail is appropriate per Gamaliel's comment. I have made it so. plain_regular_ham 14:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I have update the Foster references. I think that they adhere to all existing standards. plain_regular_ham 17:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Mrs. Clinton's brother Hugh Rodham obtained presidential pardons for Carlos Vignali, Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell, sparking a controversy in some circles over the money Hugh Rodham received for the deal.
If this is relevant enough to warrant inclusion, it will need to be given context and explanation. Who are these guys, what did they do, and why is it mentioned here? The sentence seems like it would fit better in Hugh's article. Mr. Billion 08:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
==Picture++ This does not look like a picture of Hillary to me, Ms. Lewniski should be on her own page. 20 May 2005
This page reads like a nightmarish post from freerepublic.com. It is a whole page of Hillary-bashing. As a reputable encyclopedia, how can we talk about Vince Foster or other non-issues raised by the Right-Wing Conspiracy. Her 10-point landslide win is even told to be not acceptable because it was less than Gore's margin. That's hogwash.
Why don't we talk about how Hillary fought for teacher testing as first lady, or spoke out for woman's rights in China, or worked to expand children's health coverage, or her tireless work on the Armed Service Committee, or the 20 billion dollars she helped secure to rebuild after 9/11? Her poll numbers are through the roof!! She has a 69% approval rating and a 49% approval rating among NY Republicans.
My point it, this page is mostly untrue, unfair, negative attacks on Sen. Clinton, rather than an objective look at that work that Hillary has done throughout her life. I will attach a NPOV to this article, as I want the whole article re-written.
I will not re-write it myself because I admit that I'm not neutral. I love Hillary. That's why I urge Right-Wing members to not edit the page either. We need someone who is fair and honest to do so. -- Justy329 01:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I will remove my NPOV tag, as someone added a description of her senate career. that's all I wanted. -- Justy329 15:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)