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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
It is not too much. An endorsement is an endorsement and your talking point is bad. Schroeder endorsed her and he knows what this means.
This is an endorsement because he wants that "Hillary Clinton would become the next American president," and the article is named Germany's ex-chancellor backs Hillary Clinton for president
1/2 this article is about controversies. this is quickly reaching the point where it should be spun off into a daughter article with a reasonable summary. that way the controversies can be more fully explored without completely dominating what is supposed to be a basic biography. see e.g. bill frist, george w. bush, al gore, & john kerry for precedents. comments? Derex 02:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding 'plantation', I've trimmed it down now. I removed the Laura Bush comment against and the Barack Obama comment for, as neither was really needed. Wasted Time R 13:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You are right that this article is unlike those of other political figures. Not only is there the separate Controversies section with a number of entries, there is also a separate Political Views section, where a number of entries present HRC's views and philosophies at some length. The architect of all this was LukeTH, who felt strongly that isolating both views and controversies away from the bio/historical mainline would benefit readers and increase fairness. And at the time, LukeTH was praised by several admins for his work in doing this. Even though I partially argued against it at the time, I am kind of loathe to tear this structure down now. It's also worth nothing that almost every time we've eliminated one of the Controversies entries, someone else has come along and re-introduced the issue, invariably with inferior citing and npov compared to what is here now. Wasted Time R 14:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we add a section for the Walmart controversy? She was on the board while she was the Governor's wife? Now she speaks against it. I think this is relevant, considering how large Walmart is, and how unions are a traditional Democrat base.
this controversy stuff is absolutely ridicolous. it's unfounded whining. [06:03, 21 April 2006 137.99.179.149]
You guys argue about the stupidest shit. It doesn't matter that much. I'm more annoyed by you knuckleheads than any possible bias. [15:51, 21 January 2007 68.164.60.5]
I shortened the section on carpetbag issue because the extra verbiage said nothing. I deleted the section about other elections because it is misleading, and irrelevant. This is not the place to analyze state politics --there already are articles on Shumer and D'Amato. And it's based on original research that's a no-no Rjensen 16:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article should be shortened and/or new articles should be created. I'm very concerned about this article becoming too long. SNIyer12 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2005 (UTC)
The controversies and cultural section have been spun off, and I think the current article is surprisingly excellent and NPOV as is. Aroundthewayboy 23:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Read President of the United States#Life after the Presidency, first sentence. I'm Canadian and even I knew that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I had already changed "is the wife of..." to "is married to..." in the opening paragraph on Jan 19, 2006, and am glad to see that there is implicit agreement to this. I feel this is important, since she is a person in her own right, and language such as "wife of" hearkens back to the days when wives were their husbands' property. Incidentally, Encyclopedia Britannica still calls her the "wife of" Bill Clinton -- you backwards closed-source encyclopedia, you! ;) -- RealGrouchy 07:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
To meet the standards of Wikipedia, I have created the following three subpages: 1) Political Views of Hillary Clinton, 2) Controversies surrounding Hillary Clinton, 3) Cultural Matters of Hillary Clinton. Please remember to improve these subpages when you improve the main article. Thank you. -Luketh. luketh 02:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
LukeTH edit comment: "we talked extensively about balance. there are 1 million clinton books. please list equal number of anti- and pro-. if you add an anti- add a pro- and vice versa."
Luke, during one of your absences, this policy of yours was abandoned. Instead, the books were explicitly split into separate "By Clintons", "Pro-Clinton", "Anti-Clinton", and "Mostly Neutral" groups.
When we did this, we quickly realized that there are far more anti-HRC books than pro-HRC books out there. Why? Simple human nature. People riled up about a controversial person are a good deal more likely to buy a book criticizing the subject, than are people who admire that person likely to buy a book praising the subject. It has nothing to do with ideology — a look at the List of books and films about George W. Bush will show that his Anti- list is a good deal longer than his Pro- list too.
So for this article to try to artificially impose a limit on listing anti-HRC books is wrong; it denies reality, and the ultimate NPOV application must be towards reality, not your perception of "balance". I will restore the book list accordingly. Wasted Time R 14:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Have done. Also added an explanatory note at the top of the section, saying that anti- numbers will inevitably be larger than pro- numbers, with a link to the GWB parallel. Also added publisher and year of publication to all the entries, something that was sorely lacking. Wasted Time R 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Have tried to add notable entries to the "Mostly neutral" list, since there really are a lot of these; there are some more obscure ones that I've left out, as well as a passel of pro- or neutral children's and young adult bio's. I've also created a new category for well-known books that come across as somewhat anti-HRC but are not partisan attack screeds; I've put the Roger Morris and David Brock books in there. Wasted Time R 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
...should be Hillary Clinton? Middle names are rarely included in article titles for disambiguation. ed g2s • talk 18:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It should not be changed, she made a special point to be called Hillary Rodham Clinton when she bedcame 1st lady, Wikpedia says call people by what they call themselves. 152.163.101.8 22:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
wow. her actual name is hillary rodham. she has never changed it to clinton. it's a shame ya'll are too busy with your agendas. [00:25, 18 April 2006 151.201.43.192]
See Hillary Rodham Clinton 2008 presidential speculation#Name Difference, sourced at [3]. She polls better as Hillary Rodham Clinton than as Hillary Clinton, and she is always on ballots as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Who are we to take her preferred name away? Wasted Time R 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Another data point: I got robo-called by HRC today (midterm elections), and she identified herself both at the start and end of the call as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Clearly she thinks it's her common name. Wasted Time R 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is notable enough to add to the article, perhaps to the 2008 presidential speculation section: according to the Federal Elections Commission, in the March 2, 2004 presidential primaries in Rhode Island, Hillary Clinton got 52 write-in votes. And then in the 2004 presidential election in Rhode Island, she got eight write-in votes. Perhaps she'd gotten votes in previous presidential primaries and elections too, I don't know. Schizombie 11:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the least notable thing in the history of notability. 205.188.117.12 13:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I found this the other day on FECs webpage. I dont know if this means that she has already filled for the 2008 Presidential election... http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/P00003392/
The new excessive use of subtitles breaking the reasonably-sized paragraphs into a few senteces per subsection is very ugly. I've returned the original, superior, format. Please leave it as it is unless you can indeed build a consensus that such a ghastly format is good for this article. luketh 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 03:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Does this quote really belong in this article? Wanda5088 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In March 2006, high-voltage actress Sharon Stone cast doubt on Clinton's presidential chances, saying "Hillary still has sexual power, and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening." [74]
No it should be removed. [06:04, 21 April 2006 137.99.179.149]
SERIOUSLY...why would a picture of a poorly photoshoped topless Hillary even appear on this article for ONE edit? Let's grow up a little.
This section clearly needs expansion. It looks like a whitewash. By the way, from a quick glance at the article, it's pretty telling that the term "Whitewater" does not come up even once. 172 | Talk 14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Each of her controversies is being defended by heresay, quoting lack of proof confirming or denying, or outright questioning of the sources without counterdefense. It's clear at this time evidence of PR dumping and history rewrites by supporters in prep for the 2008 race. In several places there is clearly been no attempt to even hide this massaging of historical data. This is not the purpose of Wiki and degrades the quality of its reliablity to the public. [14:42, 2 July 2006 Sheepdog tx]
This section was cleary not neutral and designed to slander and present bias toward HRC. No other living political without a conviction or criminal record has been subjected to such attacks. -- 24.215.230.63 08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is teh suk. [19:55, 15 August 2006 155.246.11.160]
This is great. Has anyone noticed that the articles spouting revisionist history are always locked? That's because an opposing viewpoint is called vandalism, according to liberals. This article is entirely one-sided and an embarrassment to the Wikipedia cause. [02:17, 6 November 2006 68.4.70.65]
This sentence in the article is unsourced: "Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, a conservative, was an executive in the textile industry...". Doesn't sound right to me. [05:52, 5 June 2006 66.98.131.128 ]
If the Lewinsky and Flowers relationships are relevant, then so are all Bill's other relationships. I actually admire some things Hilary believes in, but it is wrong to whitewash her marriage as perfect. The old piece looks like it came from a Hilary PR piece [21:42, 6 July 2006 70.110.156.83]
Shouldn't this be "marriage with Bill Clinton" instead? I think it sounds more sensible. [03:00, 7 July 2006 72.75.211.97]
Well aren't those all aspects of their marriage? [03:22, 10 July 2006 72.75.216.64]
(cur) (last) 08:16, 11 July 2006 24.215.230.63 (Talk) (→Relationship with Bill Clinton - NPOV Too focused on Federal prosecution Bill Clinton gives "Relationship Heading" implies a study of the larger union)
I can't help but notice how utterly bizarre it is to have this section at all and simultaneously not discuss any of the relevant facts, while leaving in what appear to be rebuttal facts in response to an unstated argument. The rest of the article looks great, however, and the spinoff of the controversies business seems appropriate. If it is thought that these issues are not relevant to her public persona or are purely private, then why have the section at all? Presumably one can figure out that she is married to Bill Clinton from the First Lady material? And if there's supposed to be a juicy gossipy section, let's have it. If not, why do we have a "see? no juicy gossip here!" section? I'm pretty nonpartisan these days, but this just looks weird. Agent Cooper 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The marriage Controversy should indeed be pushed to the respective section whichis precisely why it should be removed from here. Either the conversation should follow here courtship and other factual truths related to her actions in the marriage or the citations should be moved to the "Bill Clinton Controversies" page or within the Controversies page added here. Otherwise this just reads like a tabloid and is in clear violation of the NPOV rules.-- Francespeabody 08:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My roommate and I share internet access and opinions regarding political matters. The assumption of the contributions being all mine is erroneous. He chose not to edit but suggested the article POV was not neutral and modified the article.
Second, the citation belongs in Bill's article since it was his action. That was the point I made earlier. If she indeed commit this action put it here but she did not. I notice you did not address any of my points instead "reverting" all without including any new information. I have the book in question and it is not a source to be cited for the topic of "her marriage" as a single source on the topic nor does the book devote or expand on the topic in any significant length. The scandal is purely an OUTSIDER view of Bill's infidelity and in know way defines her marriage. It defines public opinion of "Bill's action" and the "Republican" use of public funds to engage in the witch-hunt that lead to its uncovering but it does not speak to "Her actions" in "Her Marriage" thus has no place in the article speaking to who "She Is" and what she has done.
I asked a simple question, do the sins of the husband transfer to the wife and you have ignored it.
Please review the articles of former first ladies and the dignity applied to them. Pat Nixon Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. In both cases the section related to marriage does not exapand in any detail the husbands transgressions yet in almost any such case, I see that if a Democrat has done amazing things for humanity the more likely there is to be some jab at the wife and the more pathetic the presidential job, the softer you all will be. What I see is the ongoing revisionist POV being applied to make things more Red. The "Wiki" way fails at this level because it offers no final NPOV oversight to settle such matters.
You repeatedly want to disparage Hillary for the actions of the Husband. The section does not belong because it does not contain a single action she carried out. It is that simple! There is no need to edit a section that is added purely to disparage or stain and has not merit in the section. Further, public scandal does not speak to their marriage, it speaks to the public sentiment, perception, federal prosecution but no citation that is accessible provides her direct and comprehensive discussion on the subject of her marriage as it specifically relates to Monica Lewinsky. Nothing you have cited even quotes her saying or making mention of the topic.
Unless you can cite something that quotes her directly about her relationship, and can provide the quote than all of the rest of it is supposition. You link only to "the scandal", "Monica Lewinsky", and her book "Living History" which you assert she discusses "at length" the story yet you don't include the discussion, the page the quote is taken from and how it describes the marriage in terms of her actions.
You just cite generally therefore none of it should stay. The idea that "False, and Scandalous" contributions should be edited to make them "More" false is a fallacy of arugment. AS well, until such time as this debate is concluded, the POV should remain and I will place it back.-- Francespeabody 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
In relation to : Pat Nixon Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Their husbands had "Issues" can we agree? Nixon was impeached and John F had reported affairs but neither of their Wiki bio's contain, dignify or assign the "Husbands" misdeeds to the wife. I should say that in the case of Mrs. Nixon, she was not blamed in her marriage for her husbands failings as a president or as a man. However on the Democratic side for Mrs. Kennedy, they do make mention of a transgression.
Even here there is bias, if you compare the two presidents sins, Nixon's is gravely more dangerous yet nothing stains his wife but Jackie has to wear that badge on her? But even in Jackie's case the issue is related without the venom that HRC is being subjected to here. Many more stories exist about Jack and the details are the stuff of legend but those stories do not stain "her impeccable reputation" nor should they.
Simple!!!-- Francespeabody 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What will Bill Clinton be then? She was "The first lady",will he be "The first gentleman"???
Ice Cold 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop removing this catagorey. Both of Mrs. Clinton's paternal grandparents are English immigrants, and, as such, she comfortably qualifies as an English American. Manticore126
Can't something be done to PROTECT this page, at least from anonymous users, since it has repeatedly been the victim of vandalism? JimmB 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of vandalism, I want to add that I think Hillary is hot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.121.190 ( talk • contribs)
This article reads like a press release from the Hillary Clinton Campaign. How about some balance? There's more than a critic or two out there. -- 12.74.187.177 06:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit. I saw it. This article is a whitewash and burying criticism of Hillary's controversies is furtherance of the whitewash. I'm restoring the censored text. -- 12.74.187.120 01:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
What specifically do you want to change. Just putting up NPOV tag without specific suggestions is useless. The article now links to controversies in opehing section. What more do you want? 24.120.168.55 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have put those into that. 24.120.168.63 14:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
In fairness the 12.74.187.177 was right, it can be hard to find the controversies in this article, if you don't read all way the bottom to. So I have put mentions them of into the beginning. Better now. 24.120.168.63 17:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
But she was previously one of his major and strongest supporters in the foering policy.
I thhink this category should be for longitime and not flip-floopers critict (Byrd, Gore) 83.24.194.186 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
She was in some lesbian porn flick back in the 70s Naru said so!!!!!! PWN bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [12:17, 16 August 2006 69.29.253.96]
Hey, I wanna watch that, too.
Great praise to User:Ricky81682 for converting all the citations to the proper references format!
I hesitate to mention that there are four subsidiary articles that also need conversion ;-) Wasted Time R 11:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be her full name after marrying Bill?-- Folksong 20:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC) - :Or more logically, Hillary Diane Clinton - she hasn't hyphenated it, has she? Dave 11/11/06
I moved the 2008 presidential race speculation section into its own article, Hillary Rodham Clinton 2008 presidential speculation. It was getting too long and disjointed to be here, and it will only get bigger. If she does eventually run, the new article can be renamed to her campaign article. Wasted Time R 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I notice some edits coming in on Clinton's performance around job creation. In particular what looks like an attempt to show she may not have met her pledge to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate NY. Unfortunately the current section ends up being a bunch of facts that aren't really related. 200K new jobs is not necessarily contradicted by 170,000 manufacturing job losses, or a rise in over all unemployment. I think this is in part due to the nature of many political promises. It can be hard to hold any politician to most the letter of most promises they are likely to make. Nevertheless it's not unreasonable for readers of this article to want to see a well balanced evaluation of the state's performance in areas Clinton specifically identified as being important to voters through the pledges she made.
How about making that part of the article less focused on trying to refute a specific pledge (the 200K jobs) and more focused on general issues around NY employment and Clinton's actions? -- Siobhan Hansa 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm suspecting that the marriage section may have a case to be mentioned first. Especially since the gap between the college section and the first lady section is pretty big. -- RobbieFal 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"In 2004, the National Journal's study of roll-call votes assigned Clinton a rating of 30 in the political spectrum, relative to the current Senate, with a rating of 1 being most liberal and a rating of 100 being most conservative.[61][62]" Actually going to these references I don't see Hiliary getting a rank of 30. This needs to be corrected or deleted. Sad mouse 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Most Liberal = 100, most conservative = 0: Clinton Economic = 63, Social = 82, Foreign = 58. Average = 68 (or on a 100 = most conservative scale this would be 32, pretty close to the 30.) Rjensen 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The rap song Grillz by Nelly makes a fairly distasteful reference to Clinton (verse 3, this part by Ali):
"Where I got 'em you can spot 'em,
On da top and da bottom,
Gotta bill in my mouth like I'm Hillary Rodham"
An interesting tidbit, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.203.14 ( talk • contribs)
It might be incorrect to put her in the "same-sex marriage opposition" category. If you'll check her voting record on ontheissues.org, you'll see that she voted against a proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Treybien 17:08 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a new external link in this article, in the "Unofficial" subsection, to Hillary Clinton's page on whereIstand.com. The "Public Figures" feature of whereIstand is kind of a souped-up, community-generated version of OnTheIssues.org, which also shows up in that section (disclosure: I'm an editor there). Please have a look and see if it's worty of inclusion. -- EsperantoStand 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It strikes me as odd that the First Lady section is entirely composed of positive statements, with the various controversies pushed off both to the end of the article and even then set as a link to another article. Surely some of the bigger controversies, particularly the health care task force and Tammy Wynette/cookies references, should appear in the main article. 69.250.29.200 [02:39, 22 November 2006]
Geez, I couldn't have been MORE wrong about that health care thing . . . how embarrassing. Aside from that, however, the First Lady section still reads, to me, like a puff piece. But a lot less so. 69.250.29.200
Wasted, I'll disagree with you about the relevance of Liddy Dole and Barack Obama, which I removed and you put back. For Obama in particular, to compare his situation to that of a spouse of a president, and to mention him alongside a former cabinet member and spouse of a long-time Senator/presidential candidate, seems like quite a stretch. Just calling him "nationally visible" doesn't mean he was -- one keynote speech does not a famous person make. I still believe that this entire comment is unnecessary and un-illuminating. 69.250.29.200
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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
It is not too much. An endorsement is an endorsement and your talking point is bad. Schroeder endorsed her and he knows what this means.
This is an endorsement because he wants that "Hillary Clinton would become the next American president," and the article is named Germany's ex-chancellor backs Hillary Clinton for president
1/2 this article is about controversies. this is quickly reaching the point where it should be spun off into a daughter article with a reasonable summary. that way the controversies can be more fully explored without completely dominating what is supposed to be a basic biography. see e.g. bill frist, george w. bush, al gore, & john kerry for precedents. comments? Derex 02:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding 'plantation', I've trimmed it down now. I removed the Laura Bush comment against and the Barack Obama comment for, as neither was really needed. Wasted Time R 13:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You are right that this article is unlike those of other political figures. Not only is there the separate Controversies section with a number of entries, there is also a separate Political Views section, where a number of entries present HRC's views and philosophies at some length. The architect of all this was LukeTH, who felt strongly that isolating both views and controversies away from the bio/historical mainline would benefit readers and increase fairness. And at the time, LukeTH was praised by several admins for his work in doing this. Even though I partially argued against it at the time, I am kind of loathe to tear this structure down now. It's also worth nothing that almost every time we've eliminated one of the Controversies entries, someone else has come along and re-introduced the issue, invariably with inferior citing and npov compared to what is here now. Wasted Time R 14:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we add a section for the Walmart controversy? She was on the board while she was the Governor's wife? Now she speaks against it. I think this is relevant, considering how large Walmart is, and how unions are a traditional Democrat base.
this controversy stuff is absolutely ridicolous. it's unfounded whining. [06:03, 21 April 2006 137.99.179.149]
You guys argue about the stupidest shit. It doesn't matter that much. I'm more annoyed by you knuckleheads than any possible bias. [15:51, 21 January 2007 68.164.60.5]
I shortened the section on carpetbag issue because the extra verbiage said nothing. I deleted the section about other elections because it is misleading, and irrelevant. This is not the place to analyze state politics --there already are articles on Shumer and D'Amato. And it's based on original research that's a no-no Rjensen 16:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article should be shortened and/or new articles should be created. I'm very concerned about this article becoming too long. SNIyer12 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2005 (UTC)
The controversies and cultural section have been spun off, and I think the current article is surprisingly excellent and NPOV as is. Aroundthewayboy 23:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Read President of the United States#Life after the Presidency, first sentence. I'm Canadian and even I knew that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I had already changed "is the wife of..." to "is married to..." in the opening paragraph on Jan 19, 2006, and am glad to see that there is implicit agreement to this. I feel this is important, since she is a person in her own right, and language such as "wife of" hearkens back to the days when wives were their husbands' property. Incidentally, Encyclopedia Britannica still calls her the "wife of" Bill Clinton -- you backwards closed-source encyclopedia, you! ;) -- RealGrouchy 07:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
To meet the standards of Wikipedia, I have created the following three subpages: 1) Political Views of Hillary Clinton, 2) Controversies surrounding Hillary Clinton, 3) Cultural Matters of Hillary Clinton. Please remember to improve these subpages when you improve the main article. Thank you. -Luketh. luketh 02:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
LukeTH edit comment: "we talked extensively about balance. there are 1 million clinton books. please list equal number of anti- and pro-. if you add an anti- add a pro- and vice versa."
Luke, during one of your absences, this policy of yours was abandoned. Instead, the books were explicitly split into separate "By Clintons", "Pro-Clinton", "Anti-Clinton", and "Mostly Neutral" groups.
When we did this, we quickly realized that there are far more anti-HRC books than pro-HRC books out there. Why? Simple human nature. People riled up about a controversial person are a good deal more likely to buy a book criticizing the subject, than are people who admire that person likely to buy a book praising the subject. It has nothing to do with ideology — a look at the List of books and films about George W. Bush will show that his Anti- list is a good deal longer than his Pro- list too.
So for this article to try to artificially impose a limit on listing anti-HRC books is wrong; it denies reality, and the ultimate NPOV application must be towards reality, not your perception of "balance". I will restore the book list accordingly. Wasted Time R 14:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Have done. Also added an explanatory note at the top of the section, saying that anti- numbers will inevitably be larger than pro- numbers, with a link to the GWB parallel. Also added publisher and year of publication to all the entries, something that was sorely lacking. Wasted Time R 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Have tried to add notable entries to the "Mostly neutral" list, since there really are a lot of these; there are some more obscure ones that I've left out, as well as a passel of pro- or neutral children's and young adult bio's. I've also created a new category for well-known books that come across as somewhat anti-HRC but are not partisan attack screeds; I've put the Roger Morris and David Brock books in there. Wasted Time R 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
...should be Hillary Clinton? Middle names are rarely included in article titles for disambiguation. ed g2s • talk 18:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It should not be changed, she made a special point to be called Hillary Rodham Clinton when she bedcame 1st lady, Wikpedia says call people by what they call themselves. 152.163.101.8 22:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
wow. her actual name is hillary rodham. she has never changed it to clinton. it's a shame ya'll are too busy with your agendas. [00:25, 18 April 2006 151.201.43.192]
See Hillary Rodham Clinton 2008 presidential speculation#Name Difference, sourced at [3]. She polls better as Hillary Rodham Clinton than as Hillary Clinton, and she is always on ballots as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Who are we to take her preferred name away? Wasted Time R 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Another data point: I got robo-called by HRC today (midterm elections), and she identified herself both at the start and end of the call as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Clearly she thinks it's her common name. Wasted Time R 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is notable enough to add to the article, perhaps to the 2008 presidential speculation section: according to the Federal Elections Commission, in the March 2, 2004 presidential primaries in Rhode Island, Hillary Clinton got 52 write-in votes. And then in the 2004 presidential election in Rhode Island, she got eight write-in votes. Perhaps she'd gotten votes in previous presidential primaries and elections too, I don't know. Schizombie 11:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the least notable thing in the history of notability. 205.188.117.12 13:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I found this the other day on FECs webpage. I dont know if this means that she has already filled for the 2008 Presidential election... http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/P00003392/
The new excessive use of subtitles breaking the reasonably-sized paragraphs into a few senteces per subsection is very ugly. I've returned the original, superior, format. Please leave it as it is unless you can indeed build a consensus that such a ghastly format is good for this article. luketh 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 03:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Does this quote really belong in this article? Wanda5088 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In March 2006, high-voltage actress Sharon Stone cast doubt on Clinton's presidential chances, saying "Hillary still has sexual power, and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening." [74]
No it should be removed. [06:04, 21 April 2006 137.99.179.149]
SERIOUSLY...why would a picture of a poorly photoshoped topless Hillary even appear on this article for ONE edit? Let's grow up a little.
This section clearly needs expansion. It looks like a whitewash. By the way, from a quick glance at the article, it's pretty telling that the term "Whitewater" does not come up even once. 172 | Talk 14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Each of her controversies is being defended by heresay, quoting lack of proof confirming or denying, or outright questioning of the sources without counterdefense. It's clear at this time evidence of PR dumping and history rewrites by supporters in prep for the 2008 race. In several places there is clearly been no attempt to even hide this massaging of historical data. This is not the purpose of Wiki and degrades the quality of its reliablity to the public. [14:42, 2 July 2006 Sheepdog tx]
This section was cleary not neutral and designed to slander and present bias toward HRC. No other living political without a conviction or criminal record has been subjected to such attacks. -- 24.215.230.63 08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is teh suk. [19:55, 15 August 2006 155.246.11.160]
This is great. Has anyone noticed that the articles spouting revisionist history are always locked? That's because an opposing viewpoint is called vandalism, according to liberals. This article is entirely one-sided and an embarrassment to the Wikipedia cause. [02:17, 6 November 2006 68.4.70.65]
This sentence in the article is unsourced: "Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, a conservative, was an executive in the textile industry...". Doesn't sound right to me. [05:52, 5 June 2006 66.98.131.128 ]
If the Lewinsky and Flowers relationships are relevant, then so are all Bill's other relationships. I actually admire some things Hilary believes in, but it is wrong to whitewash her marriage as perfect. The old piece looks like it came from a Hilary PR piece [21:42, 6 July 2006 70.110.156.83]
Shouldn't this be "marriage with Bill Clinton" instead? I think it sounds more sensible. [03:00, 7 July 2006 72.75.211.97]
Well aren't those all aspects of their marriage? [03:22, 10 July 2006 72.75.216.64]
(cur) (last) 08:16, 11 July 2006 24.215.230.63 (Talk) (→Relationship with Bill Clinton - NPOV Too focused on Federal prosecution Bill Clinton gives "Relationship Heading" implies a study of the larger union)
I can't help but notice how utterly bizarre it is to have this section at all and simultaneously not discuss any of the relevant facts, while leaving in what appear to be rebuttal facts in response to an unstated argument. The rest of the article looks great, however, and the spinoff of the controversies business seems appropriate. If it is thought that these issues are not relevant to her public persona or are purely private, then why have the section at all? Presumably one can figure out that she is married to Bill Clinton from the First Lady material? And if there's supposed to be a juicy gossipy section, let's have it. If not, why do we have a "see? no juicy gossip here!" section? I'm pretty nonpartisan these days, but this just looks weird. Agent Cooper 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The marriage Controversy should indeed be pushed to the respective section whichis precisely why it should be removed from here. Either the conversation should follow here courtship and other factual truths related to her actions in the marriage or the citations should be moved to the "Bill Clinton Controversies" page or within the Controversies page added here. Otherwise this just reads like a tabloid and is in clear violation of the NPOV rules.-- Francespeabody 08:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My roommate and I share internet access and opinions regarding political matters. The assumption of the contributions being all mine is erroneous. He chose not to edit but suggested the article POV was not neutral and modified the article.
Second, the citation belongs in Bill's article since it was his action. That was the point I made earlier. If she indeed commit this action put it here but she did not. I notice you did not address any of my points instead "reverting" all without including any new information. I have the book in question and it is not a source to be cited for the topic of "her marriage" as a single source on the topic nor does the book devote or expand on the topic in any significant length. The scandal is purely an OUTSIDER view of Bill's infidelity and in know way defines her marriage. It defines public opinion of "Bill's action" and the "Republican" use of public funds to engage in the witch-hunt that lead to its uncovering but it does not speak to "Her actions" in "Her Marriage" thus has no place in the article speaking to who "She Is" and what she has done.
I asked a simple question, do the sins of the husband transfer to the wife and you have ignored it.
Please review the articles of former first ladies and the dignity applied to them. Pat Nixon Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. In both cases the section related to marriage does not exapand in any detail the husbands transgressions yet in almost any such case, I see that if a Democrat has done amazing things for humanity the more likely there is to be some jab at the wife and the more pathetic the presidential job, the softer you all will be. What I see is the ongoing revisionist POV being applied to make things more Red. The "Wiki" way fails at this level because it offers no final NPOV oversight to settle such matters.
You repeatedly want to disparage Hillary for the actions of the Husband. The section does not belong because it does not contain a single action she carried out. It is that simple! There is no need to edit a section that is added purely to disparage or stain and has not merit in the section. Further, public scandal does not speak to their marriage, it speaks to the public sentiment, perception, federal prosecution but no citation that is accessible provides her direct and comprehensive discussion on the subject of her marriage as it specifically relates to Monica Lewinsky. Nothing you have cited even quotes her saying or making mention of the topic.
Unless you can cite something that quotes her directly about her relationship, and can provide the quote than all of the rest of it is supposition. You link only to "the scandal", "Monica Lewinsky", and her book "Living History" which you assert she discusses "at length" the story yet you don't include the discussion, the page the quote is taken from and how it describes the marriage in terms of her actions.
You just cite generally therefore none of it should stay. The idea that "False, and Scandalous" contributions should be edited to make them "More" false is a fallacy of arugment. AS well, until such time as this debate is concluded, the POV should remain and I will place it back.-- Francespeabody 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
In relation to : Pat Nixon Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Their husbands had "Issues" can we agree? Nixon was impeached and John F had reported affairs but neither of their Wiki bio's contain, dignify or assign the "Husbands" misdeeds to the wife. I should say that in the case of Mrs. Nixon, she was not blamed in her marriage for her husbands failings as a president or as a man. However on the Democratic side for Mrs. Kennedy, they do make mention of a transgression.
Even here there is bias, if you compare the two presidents sins, Nixon's is gravely more dangerous yet nothing stains his wife but Jackie has to wear that badge on her? But even in Jackie's case the issue is related without the venom that HRC is being subjected to here. Many more stories exist about Jack and the details are the stuff of legend but those stories do not stain "her impeccable reputation" nor should they.
Simple!!!-- Francespeabody 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What will Bill Clinton be then? She was "The first lady",will he be "The first gentleman"???
Ice Cold 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop removing this catagorey. Both of Mrs. Clinton's paternal grandparents are English immigrants, and, as such, she comfortably qualifies as an English American. Manticore126
Can't something be done to PROTECT this page, at least from anonymous users, since it has repeatedly been the victim of vandalism? JimmB 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of vandalism, I want to add that I think Hillary is hot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.121.190 ( talk • contribs)
This article reads like a press release from the Hillary Clinton Campaign. How about some balance? There's more than a critic or two out there. -- 12.74.187.177 06:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit. I saw it. This article is a whitewash and burying criticism of Hillary's controversies is furtherance of the whitewash. I'm restoring the censored text. -- 12.74.187.120 01:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
What specifically do you want to change. Just putting up NPOV tag without specific suggestions is useless. The article now links to controversies in opehing section. What more do you want? 24.120.168.55 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have put those into that. 24.120.168.63 14:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
In fairness the 12.74.187.177 was right, it can be hard to find the controversies in this article, if you don't read all way the bottom to. So I have put mentions them of into the beginning. Better now. 24.120.168.63 17:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
But she was previously one of his major and strongest supporters in the foering policy.
I thhink this category should be for longitime and not flip-floopers critict (Byrd, Gore) 83.24.194.186 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
She was in some lesbian porn flick back in the 70s Naru said so!!!!!! PWN bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [12:17, 16 August 2006 69.29.253.96]
Hey, I wanna watch that, too.
Great praise to User:Ricky81682 for converting all the citations to the proper references format!
I hesitate to mention that there are four subsidiary articles that also need conversion ;-) Wasted Time R 11:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be her full name after marrying Bill?-- Folksong 20:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC) - :Or more logically, Hillary Diane Clinton - she hasn't hyphenated it, has she? Dave 11/11/06
I moved the 2008 presidential race speculation section into its own article, Hillary Rodham Clinton 2008 presidential speculation. It was getting too long and disjointed to be here, and it will only get bigger. If she does eventually run, the new article can be renamed to her campaign article. Wasted Time R 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I notice some edits coming in on Clinton's performance around job creation. In particular what looks like an attempt to show she may not have met her pledge to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate NY. Unfortunately the current section ends up being a bunch of facts that aren't really related. 200K new jobs is not necessarily contradicted by 170,000 manufacturing job losses, or a rise in over all unemployment. I think this is in part due to the nature of many political promises. It can be hard to hold any politician to most the letter of most promises they are likely to make. Nevertheless it's not unreasonable for readers of this article to want to see a well balanced evaluation of the state's performance in areas Clinton specifically identified as being important to voters through the pledges she made.
How about making that part of the article less focused on trying to refute a specific pledge (the 200K jobs) and more focused on general issues around NY employment and Clinton's actions? -- Siobhan Hansa 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm suspecting that the marriage section may have a case to be mentioned first. Especially since the gap between the college section and the first lady section is pretty big. -- RobbieFal 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"In 2004, the National Journal's study of roll-call votes assigned Clinton a rating of 30 in the political spectrum, relative to the current Senate, with a rating of 1 being most liberal and a rating of 100 being most conservative.[61][62]" Actually going to these references I don't see Hiliary getting a rank of 30. This needs to be corrected or deleted. Sad mouse 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Most Liberal = 100, most conservative = 0: Clinton Economic = 63, Social = 82, Foreign = 58. Average = 68 (or on a 100 = most conservative scale this would be 32, pretty close to the 30.) Rjensen 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The rap song Grillz by Nelly makes a fairly distasteful reference to Clinton (verse 3, this part by Ali):
"Where I got 'em you can spot 'em,
On da top and da bottom,
Gotta bill in my mouth like I'm Hillary Rodham"
An interesting tidbit, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.203.14 ( talk • contribs)
It might be incorrect to put her in the "same-sex marriage opposition" category. If you'll check her voting record on ontheissues.org, you'll see that she voted against a proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Treybien 17:08 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a new external link in this article, in the "Unofficial" subsection, to Hillary Clinton's page on whereIstand.com. The "Public Figures" feature of whereIstand is kind of a souped-up, community-generated version of OnTheIssues.org, which also shows up in that section (disclosure: I'm an editor there). Please have a look and see if it's worty of inclusion. -- EsperantoStand 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It strikes me as odd that the First Lady section is entirely composed of positive statements, with the various controversies pushed off both to the end of the article and even then set as a link to another article. Surely some of the bigger controversies, particularly the health care task force and Tammy Wynette/cookies references, should appear in the main article. 69.250.29.200 [02:39, 22 November 2006]
Geez, I couldn't have been MORE wrong about that health care thing . . . how embarrassing. Aside from that, however, the First Lady section still reads, to me, like a puff piece. But a lot less so. 69.250.29.200
Wasted, I'll disagree with you about the relevance of Liddy Dole and Barack Obama, which I removed and you put back. For Obama in particular, to compare his situation to that of a spouse of a president, and to mention him alongside a former cabinet member and spouse of a long-time Senator/presidential candidate, seems like quite a stretch. Just calling him "nationally visible" doesn't mean he was -- one keynote speech does not a famous person make. I still believe that this entire comment is unnecessary and un-illuminating. 69.250.29.200