Wikipedia

Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 8

< Talk:Hillary Clinton
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Wasted Time R in topic Title
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Comments from GA review for FAC

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

The following comments need to be addressed/debated before the article goes to FAC:

  • MAJOR: Lead section talk about the 'polarization' of opinion amongst people about Hillary Clinton
Now added back to intro, with new 'Cultural and political image' section to back it up. Wasted Time R 02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • MINOR: Her parents encouraged her to pursue the career of her choice.[1]" - add a phrase letting the readers know that this was not a standard practice of that era
Whether it was a common practice of the area or not, I would say that it's important to her life whether her parents encouraged her or not. I don't see how it matters whether it was common or not, it should still be left in.--71.65.202.41 18:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • MINOR: Explanation for the event - "She was audibly booed in an audience of New York firefighters and police officers during her on-stage appearance at The Concert for New York City on October 20, 2001.[54]"
    --Kalyan 12:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd remove the booing unless we can find reliable sources that actually explain it. Otherwise it is unclear or speculative. Tvoz |talk 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've found an additional good source (the Gerth & Van Natta book) for the booing and why it happened, and have expanded the footnote on this accordingly. Wasted Time R 03:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen the book, but is this their speculation about what might have been the reason for the booing or did they provide some kind of evidence like interviews with booers? I've been looking for contemporaneous news reports with explanations, but haven't yet come up with any - I'd like to supplement the footnote with that. Unless Gerth & Van Natta have more than just their own theory, that is. Tvoz |talk 03:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
They give this as the source for Hillary's comment on it, but no source for their causes. I was watching the concert on TV at the time, and I would say it was half G-VN's reasons, half just plain visceral dislike of her. Wasted Time R 03:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, so was I - and I pretty much agree - but if we're including this incident at all (and I'm not really sure why we are), I wish we had something more than speculation. It's not a big deal though. Tvoz |talk 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Gave this some more thought and reading it again the booing incident stuck out to me as being without context - I've added some material to the 2000senate campaign about endorsements, which ties into the subsequent comments about police & firefighters. Also added some additional refs and cleaned up a bunch of other refs for cite style. Tvoz |talk 07:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

FA Class

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is this article good enough to be nominated? Very well sourced, well written and with the controversy page merged. This, and the Obama article, are the best current political candidate articles that I have seen on Wikipedia. Turtlescrubber 04:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the article would be immediately called out for a few flaws:

  • a number of references need to be put into {{cite}} format (I'm not volunteering, I hate working with that format)
  • 'First Lady' section is lengthy, needs subsections (I've been pondering the best way)
  • 'Political positions' section doesn't really summarize the split-out article (I don't think it needs to personally, but FA reviewers will probably go by the book)

In addition, I still wish the article directly addressed the polarizing role HRC has played in the national stage, certainly in the 1990s ... maybe something akin to the Barack_Obama#Cultural_and_political_image section ... needs research work to support it however ... Wasted Time R 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on the {{cite}} format Tvoz |talk 23:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I've now added the 'polarizing' section I've had in mind; it's called 'Cultural and political image', similar to Barack_Obama#Cultural_and_political_image but with a bit of Public perception of George W. Bush in it as well. Wasted Time R 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's now a candidate. Leave comments at the link indicated in the box at the top of this page. Wasted Time R 03:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I'm sure that this had be discussed before, but could someone tell me why the article's title isn't Hillary Clinton as she is widely known in the media? CG 20:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_5#Requested_move. Wasted Time R 20:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And why isn't she often referred to by first name only, in the body of the article, as everyone does? I know it's wiki policy to use last names and not first names. People are often known by their first names, therefore its a policy that bespeaks an absurdly humorless, starched-collar, taking-yourself-too-serious policy. But all the more when the person is referred to much of the time by her first name, in all venues. In the case of people known exclusively by first name Wikipedia makes an exception for Cher -- which every bit as sensible as its refusal to make an exception for Beyoncé is ridiculous (calling her "Knowles" all through the article!). Why not for Hillary? Today Gail Collins in the NY Times calls her "Hillary" as everyone else does. At least the article should at times use Hillary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmleaf (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to make your case to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), not here. But I don't like first name usage like you suggest; it's just too informal. It certainly would make the writing easier, and I think for that reason both of the two big 2007 biographies of her (Bernstein and Gerth-Van Natta) refer to her as "Hillary" throughout. Regarding Collins, she writes on the op-ed pages where the standards are different. Regarding Beyoncé, she's a harder case because she uses Knowles in some contexts, such as acting. Wasted Time R 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the archive is not to be changed, I'll append comment here. (a) First, someone wrote, "She is almost always referred to as HRC." That is simply not true. Most of the time, in print anyway, she is referred to as Hillary Clinton, Sen. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, or as Hillary. In some venues, it's almost always Hillary. (b) Most people, most of the time, call her just Hillary. That certaintly constitutes a flat-out rejection of "HRC". (It also suggests, BTW, that a very smart move on her part would be to just call herself "Hillary".) (c) For Wiki to call her "HRC" would be POV, because it would buy into her view. To call her "Hillary" would also be POV, the opposite way. (d) To not be POV Wiki should alternate the monikers: call her by turns "Hillary", "Clinton," "Hillary Clinton," "Sen. Clinton" "the Senator" etc. (e) In the archived discussion, some argue that HRC should be the article name because that's how she signs things. IMO, that argument does't hold up. Many people sign with the form "John Q. Public" and are generally referred to that way in formal use. But for Hillary to call herself "HRC" is nothing short of mildly eccentric. It is an eccentricity that the public rejects - shown by calling her "Hillary". Why then should Wiki accept the eccentricity that no one else accepts?

The article already does call her by "Hillary Rodham Clinton", "Hillary Rodham", "Rodham", "Hillary Clinton", "Clinton", "the First Lady", and "Senator Clinton". That seems like enough alternation of monikers. Adding "Hillary" into the brew still seems inappropriate to me. Wasted Time R 02:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Some other article titles on female politicians who incorporate their original last name: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Carol Moseley Braun, Margaret Chase Smith, Christine Todd Whitman . There are more; look at Women in the United States Senate. Wasted Time R 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Clinton Article

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Why isn't there a "Controversies" section in the Hillary Clinton article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.234.198 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the editors believe that such a section — or separate article, as it would have to be given length considerations — is a violation of the WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism guidelines. Instead, all controversial material is integrated into the Hillary Clinton article and subarticles in their normal places. Thus, the Arkansas years and First Lady sections of this article have discussions of her role in Whitewater, the article on the 2000 Senate campaign describes the Suha Arafat episode, and so forth. Wasted Time R 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Wasted Time R 12:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Does the same rules apply for the articles of Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney and the dozens of other articles of Republican/conservativei politicians on Wikipedia? Am I the only one who finds it quite hilarious that the main articles of the four highest-polling Republican candidates for the 2008 presidency all have their special "controversies"-section, while on the other hand the articles of the four highest-polling Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson) all lack one. A coincidence? I think that this is a very serious problem for Wikipedia's credibility that really need to be addressed. /Slarre 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the articles should take a consistent approach, but consistency across articles is not one of Wikipedia's strong points. I will be happy to support any move to dismantle the G/T/M/R controversies pages/sections you mention, and distribute them into the mainline biographical portions of their articles and subarticles, as one done for Hillary. However, it would really help if Jimbo or some other higher power would explicitly rule on how this particular aspect of politician/candidates articles should be handled, so that we can all get on the same page, no pun intended. And you're right, it's quite unfortunate the the current divided approach happens to split along party lines. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether this is coincidental or not. Wasted Time R 00:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of it is also a difference in opinions on controversy sections between the editors on the Republican articles and those on the Democratic articles. When Fred Thompson controversies came up for deletion, one of the most vocal proponents for keeping the article rather than merging it into the main article is a supporter of Thompson's while some of those accused of being in the "liberal cabal" were advocating for it to be deleted and merged into the main article. All in all, I'm in complete agreement with Wasted Time R, I'm more than willing to support any move to dismantle the controversy sections/articles on the Republican articles. Well, if I'm active.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 01:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good point that Bobblehead makes. In the earlier days of the Hillary article, User:LukeTH, who was a passionate pro-Hillary advocate and added lots of proish Hillary material to the article, was adamant that there be a separate controversies section (and later page). He seemed to feel that this left the mainline "objective" history narrative unsullied by negative material, and that people would more likely disregard a "controversies" section as subjective material created by opponents. So it's not at all clear which way benefits article subjects. Wasted Time R 01:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters Ties?

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

On August 4th 2007, Hillary Clinton made a **claim** during a speech at the YearlyKos Convention that she helped start Media Matters. Here is a YouTube video of that speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM Why is this not included in the article? It's certainly worth mentioning. Shadax 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. She says "... institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress." This seems like one of those Al Gore-style exaggerations to me. John Podesta founded Center for American Progress and David Brock founded Media Matters for America. CAP is full of ex-Clintonistas, so it's certainly aligned with the Clintons, and Media Matters has done a lot of critiquing of anti-Clinton (and anti- other Dems) media pieces, so it's also aligned with the Clintons in a way ... but I don't see any evidence that she helped start either outfit, or has contributed money to either. Is there some verification of this apart from what she said? If not, I'm inclined to attribute it to an over-eager attempt to win over a somewhat hostile crowd (the Kossacks are generally not Hillary fans). Wasted Time R 23:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no hard evidence that she helped start Media Matters, and there probably never will be. Nevertheless, she made the **claim** and I think we should include it in the article. It's either that, or completely ignore it and pretend it never happened. Shadax 00:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is Rush Limbaugh and company. I haven't seen any neutral, responsible coverage of this non-issue. We can't and shouldn't include every utterance that anyone makes in this or any article - let's wait and see if this amounts to anything, or what. I haven't seen any evidence that this is at all notable, and it's not even clear that she was specifically saying if she started MM or supported it - this could be simply sloppy speaking. And let's not forget that as for Al Gore, he never said he "invented the internet", but the phrase lives in infamy. Tvoz |talk 03:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. I looked further and discovered that the Gerth-Van Natta book has some confirmation and clarification of Hillary's role in these. I've thus added the following to the 'First Term' section in the article, hewing closely to the language G-VN used but also giving an account of the YearlyKos remarks as a cite too:
Looking to establish a "progessive infrastructure" to rival that of American conservatism,[211] Clinton played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress;[212][213] shared aides with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, founded in 2003;[214] advised and nurtured former Clintons antagonist David Brock's Media Matters for America, created in 2004;[214][213] and following the 2004 Senate elections successfully pushed new Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid to create a Senate war room to handle daily political messaging.[214]
See what you think. Wasted Time R 03:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This works for me - I slightly stumbled on the "shared aides" clause though - wasn't sure what you meant. Tvoz |talk 05:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"This is Rush Limbaugh and company." No sir, that was a YouTube video of her making the claim. Now, whether or not that claim is true or not is anyone's guess. Regardless, I think it should be included in the article. 71.234.116.68 17:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As indicated above, it is now included. Wasted Time R 17:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Law school section and "Communist sympathies"

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

"In the late spring of 1971, she began dating Bill Clinton, who was also a law student at Yale. That summer, she interned on child custody cases[33] at the Oakland, California law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein,[34][35] which was known for its support of constitutional rights, radical causes, and for the Communist sympathies of some of its partners.[35]"

How exactly is the mention of this group's sympathies for some Communists relevant to the article? This seems to me to be an attempt at tying Clinton to a "Communist Sympathizer" group which is a little silly considering she is clearly far from a Communist sympathizer. (And trust me, I'm no fan of Hillary so this isn't a polarized Pro-Hillary defense)

KurtFF8 00:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with this objection - I never noticed that text before. I assume this is Bernstein's comment, but I also don't see the relevance. Does her autobiography talk about this? Does anyone else? Tvoz |talk 03:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Her autobiography mentions working there but glosses over the nature of the firm. (You have to be very careful with Living History, it leaves out or glosses over lots of the good stuff!) Why is it relevant? Robert Treuhaft and his wife Jessica Mitford were significant figures in the history of American Communism. The Bernstein book quotes Treuhaft as saying that at the tim, two of the four partners were communists and the other two tolerated communists. She was working on non-political cases, as far as anyone can tell, but wasn't bothered by the association with them. Back in the early 1990s, Clinton haters tried to use this to paint her as a communist by proximity, which she wasn't. But, it is definitely part of her story: within the space of five years, she worked at one of the most radical law firms in the country and then at one of the most establishment, business/government/crony-connection law firms in the country (Rose). That tells you something about her! That's why it's in here. Wasted Time R 03:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
But looking at my wording, I don't know why I used "sympathies", which is too vague. I've now changed the text to:
That summer, she interned on child custody cases[33] at the Oakland, California law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein,[34][35] which was well-known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes;[35] two of its four partners were communists.[35]
I've gone to the small 'c' form since I think they weren't in CPUSA at the time. Wasted Time R 04:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
OK - Jessica Mitford I've certainly heard of, so that makes more sense to me, although it still seems kind of out of left field, no pun intended. Should it maybe say that the firm had 2 partners who were communists, which has drawn heat for HIllary, with citation? It just seems to be hanging there as if we're supposed to garner some meaning from it. I don't object to including it, but I think it needs explanation. Tvoz |talk 04:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added a footnote that includes Barbara Olson's charges in this respect. Wasted Time R 17:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

stop sanitizing her iraq war vote

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

the levin and byrd amendments are important to help ascertain what her vote was for. stop deleting them or putting them at the bottom. Pkmilitia 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

I didn't delete them, I moved them to a footnote based on the ongoing FAC comment that the 'First term' section was hard to read. It's okay with me that you've moved them back into the main text, but I've put them in parentheses to help the readibility and fixed up the citing. Your charge that I'm "sanitizing" anything is ridiculous: I personally have no issue with her Iraq War Resolution vote and don't care about the Levin and Byrd amendments one way or the other. Wasted Time R 01:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Parenthesis are fine with me. But, taking those sentences out of the main text of the article and putting them at the bottom was improper, especially after we had compromised on this specific part a while back. Pkmilitia 16:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Three weeks later, and we have another problem. In the latest round of edits, someone deleted the portion about her vote against amendments that specifically called for diplomatic efforts. Why? Whatever reason you give is more or less unacceptable at this point. Pkmilitia 10:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Due to length constraints, her senate career was treated per WP:SUMMARY. The material about the amendments is now in Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, just as it was before, same wording and same citations. This article is pointed to from the top of the Senate section in the main article. Votes on amendments that take place before a final vote is cast on a bill or a resolution are the kind of drill-down detail that will typically be located in daughter articles, rather than the parent article, and that is what has been done here. Wasted Time R 10:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that two sentences that undercut her later explanations of her vote being for diplomacy put this article over the limit? That is ridiculous. There is an entire paragraph detailing her later positions on the war, I don't think two sentences which frame her vote on the authorization are going to hurt readability or length in this article. Pkmilitia 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

I've put the sentences back in the main article where more people will be able to see them. I disagree that this is a "drill-down detail" in the same way amendments on some lower-profile votes might be. This was an important vote and its importance should be reflected in the article about her that the most people will read. Pkmilitia 00:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Sigh. This is what I hate about WP:SUMMARY ... no one's ever happy having their brilliant bit out of the main article and only in the daughter article. The problem isn't length, it's importance. In all the debate over Hillary's vote on the war, I rarely hear anyone talking about these amendments. Why is that? Because in the end, they don't matter. What matters is the final vote she cast on the final resolution. That's the one that counted, and that for better or for worse she voted for. What evidence do you have that anyone besides you and the one article you cite, thinks these amendments are of critical importance? Wasted Time R 01:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Time to split out Senate into separate article?

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Given the way the FAC comments are going, is it time to spin the Senate material off into a separate article, and replace it with a summary section? This is the only way I can see to significantly reduce the article size and number of references right now. The Senate section does seem visually long compared to the others. Precedents for doing this, even for non-presidents, include Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani and Governorship of Mitt Romney. But what to call it? I don't know what the equivalent term to these is for a Senator. Wasted Time R 18:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think we should split this at this time - as you said, that may come to be necessary, but for now this is a major portion of her bio that I think should remain here. Size guidelines don't have to be followed so strictly. As for the references, well, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Again, I don't think we're over-referenced - this one has more than Obama, but she has had a public career for many more years than he has, so that stands to reason. I haven't looked at Reagan. I'll give this one some more thought. Tvoz |talk 21:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you need a word, maybe call it "Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton". Or keep it in the same article. [user who shall not be named]

The edit summaries debate over whether to include the DSCC assignments is a tipping point for me — it's time to spin off and summarize the Senate material, with DSCC being an example of something that will be in the daughter article but not the main article. And persistent exhortations from User:SandyGeorgia (see my Talk page) to spin off some of this article's material also plays a role. And even before this, I realized that the spin-off has to happen no matter what. Because if she becomes president, most of the sections will have to be spun off to clear space, including Senator. And if she doesn't become president, that means she'll remain in the Senate, and that section will just keep growing, meaning it will need to be spun off anyway. As for the name, the above suggestion is the best I think, I'll use that. Wasted Time R 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Senate section or the equally lengthy First Lady section are both candidates for spinning off.--Bobblehead (rants) 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Senate split-off is done; Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton is the new daughter article. I'd rather keep the First Lady section intact as long as possible, since it's more relevant to the themes and development of the article as a whole. Wasted Time R 13:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Better photo?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Anyone have a better photo of her? 7F 23:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Wasted Time R 00:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock disruptions

Latest comment: 17 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

==Featured Article Task Force== This is a result of the suggestions to make this article an FA in its present form. Let's work to make this an FA. I propose this schedule.
Task 1: Agree on the sections to be written. (October)
Task 2: Nominate two similar articles that are either FA or good enough to be FA's to be a model. (October)
Task 3: Rewrite or evaluate every section starting with the first and moving to the second only after the first is done. Pay close attention to citations.
Task 4: Review pictures after the section is stable. Pictures should support the article, not vice versa.
Task 5: Review other articles/bio on her and see if we left out anything.
Task 6: (maybe) Consider what the article will be like in 2027 and compare it with what we have.
Task 7: Discuss product with those that made FA comments and see if we addressed their concerns. Then submit for FA and pass with flying colors.

If you oppose this task force, state your name please. 7F 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the way it's done - there is an ongoing process discussing the FA status of this article, and specific comments are being responded to. Rather than pre-empting the process, I suggest we continue working with established FA reviewers who have been helpfully commenting, not proposing that the entire article be scrapped which you seem to be doing. Let's let the process go forward. Tvoz |talk 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

7F, you're either a very inexperienced editor or a sock. Either way, I intend to ignore suggestions such as these. Wasted Time R 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A sock of User:Dereks1x almost certainly. Blocking as such. · jersyko talk 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

- :AGF. If one doesn't, like you, one could conclude that you and Tvoz are socks are you post minutes apart and have the exact same opinion. You want to help out or not? I've asked others to join the task force and we will make this a truly great FA, not just a FA in name only. If you are really interested in getting an FA, you'll fix all of the concerns on the FA discussion. I certainly will ask the Task Force to do so. When the Task Force is complete, we will have an unstoppable FA because it consists of all kinds of people, even those with reservations about the FA.7F 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This block is censorship opposed to improvement7F 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Me and Tvoz as socks of one another . . . gee, where have I heard that one before???? Blocked. · jersyko talk 21:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because it always amuses me when a new Dereks1x sock comes around.. I think the reference of "you and Tvoz are socks" was aimed at Wasted R and Tvoz, rather than Jersyko and Tvoz. But it's always good to see that our circle of socks (according to Dereks1x at least) is growing. Welcome to the group, Wasted R! Your decoder ring is in the mail. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Tvoz gave her real name to the Washington Post. I don't think usually sockpuppets do that. Perhaps the Pattern Recognition Detector needs to be turned down a tad? --Pleasantville 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Just in case Pleasantville's comment was aimed at my comment. Sorry, should have been clearer, I don't suspect that Tvoz and Wasted R are socks of each other. I was more responding to Jersyko's comment. Dereks1x's socks have accused myself, Jersyko, and Tvoz of being socks of each other multiple times. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I think Pleasantville was aiming correctly at 7F - and thanks, P. But logic is usually wasted on Dereks1x and his farm. Bobblehead, I say the more the merrier in our secret oneness. This is so obviously predictable. Tvoz |talk 22:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with improvement. I support improvement. UTAFA 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with improvement, but there is something wrong with block evasion and in cases of block evasion, WP:BAN advocates enforcement by removal of their comments regardless of merit.--Bobblehead (rants) 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The material is stricken again - as you know, UTAFA, 7F was blocked because it is a sock account of Dereks1x. Tvoz |talk 23:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
UTAFA was previously suspected to be a Dereks1x, and his recent edits have removed all doubt. Blocked as well. · jersyko talk 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an argument about a user and should be directed at the article. I would like to make a suggestion. Under the first lady section, traditional duties, the second paragraph is totally unsupported by any references. If this is a good article, this is an example of not a good paragraph. MD12752 04:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I too would rather be talking about the article than dealing with another sockpuppet of a banned user whose goal seems to be just to disrupt and prevent us from doing what we're here for - but surely you see that we can't ignore it? About the substance of your comment - I think you have a point that some citations would be good in that paragraph. Thank you for raising it - we'll check to see where it came from and try to get some in there. Tvoz |talk 04:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Checked back, and found that we had references for that graf originally, but they fell off somewhere down the road - haven't bothered to find out why, but I've reinstated them. Thank you for pointing it out. Tvoz |talk 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tvoz. Don't know how those got lost. I've expanded a bit more on the restoration/redecorations and added a couple of book cites. Wasted Time R 11:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
MD12752 was also blocked as a Dereks1x sock - the third one uncovered yesterday. Tvoz |talk 02:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Arkansas Project

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Arkansas Project needs to be mentioned in the "Lewinsky scandal" in the context of Clinton referring to "a long, organized, collaborative series of charges by Clinton political enemies." Since a 6+ year effort to attack Clinton was organized[1], this needs to be referenced to the context of what was going on. NNtw22 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't just the Arkansas Project, the VRWC included various others as well. But you're right that it needed some explication; I've added a footnote covering this. Wasted Time R 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC continuing discussion

Latest comment: 17 years ago38 comments3 people in discussion

FAC continuing discussion Responses to prior comments now archived:

  • I still intend to give some help on necessary edits, undue weight concerns, and unobjectionable style edits.
  • Perhaps both Ron Paul and Clinton should have stronger in-line comments in lead as to not editing it frivolously without understanding the issues and compromises, and referring editors elsewhere. That would greatly help stability.
  • Again, to characterize some polls as useless and imply others are good predictors is the black-and-white fallacy: the various polls have a spectrum of usefulness in gaging opinion.
  • There is still undue weight in lead to the early "innocent" years. ("Innocent" here means "circumspect", not "unconvicted".)
  • Um, my comment is that whenever a particular locution is repeated many times (like "first"), it should be expressed a variety of different ways. "Unprecedented", "original", "never before", "had not previously", etc., should start you off.
  • Change "Hugh and Tony" to "Hugh Edwin and Tony", as good biographical practice.
  • My concern was that stating that a mother was a homemaker adds no information; there may still be a better phrasing.
  • "Small but successful" business implies that someone thinks smallness alone would be too suggestive of failure, but the someone doesn't have a better text. "Comfortably maintained a textile business", e.g., saves five words.
  • Yes, "possibly Native American" is where it crosses the line. In Oklahoma they carry tribal cards and there is no "possibly".
  • Comment on Goldwater meant: more information on her evolution (which currently bubbles out chaotically), and less on "Wellesley College Government" unexplained or generic Brownie points, would tighten this section.
  • You may put the 1965 Wellesley entrance date in a chrono section (see below).
  • Yes, Donald Jones influence would be more interesting than current milquetoast phrases.
  • What is unclear to an uninformed reader should be taken from the source into the article itself. The fine distinction Tvoz makes between student strikes and truancy is not made by everyone. Much clearer would be, e.g., "After Rodham organized students, especially blacks, into striking for two days, Wellesley agreed to recruit more black students and faculty"-- if consistent with source.
  • And Tvoz, remember that I am giving you first impressions of a reader who is not reading the FNs for issues that should be clear in text. It is not clear that the WCG org is student government. Change "WCG" to "student body" and the meaning is clear, and not concealed by WCG's confusing self-designation.

Most necessary edits sections 1-2:

  • law school: too much fanfare: "research assistant" on "seminal work" while authors are footnoted; was the extra year only to be with Clinton? (dodging the issue of why the courseload really shifted, please clarify); paper generically "frequently cited in the field" (how many times and when? fluff or POV phrase).
  • "communists" (collectivists) and "support of [US] constitutional rights" (individualism) are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled by fiat. Explanation or recasting necessary.
    • American communists were (necessarily) big fans of the First, Fourth, and Five Amendments. Whether the Bill of Rights would have survived CPUSA taking over the country is irrelevant to the activities of the law firm. Wasted Time R 00:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • POV: "bright political future": let reader form own conclusion from Wright's comment; "career prospects were best" in DC: change to "appeared"; "spectacular profit" is not the only view of the blind trust.
  • When did she resign or quit Rose, 1992 or 1993? Would be good to mention at time of hire. Wasn't she First Lady of AR until 1993 not 1992? Did she chair the AR Ed Stds Committee in 1982 rather than starting 1983? Later, Bill "re-elected for the final time" is too final; should be "a sixth term". Many of the date details would well be served by relegating to a separate chronology section. This would allow us to see what various head-spinning offices she held simultaneously and keep track.
  • I have no idea what she did for Rose that was worth $200K, because there is a double-mindedness in the article about whether her real job was litigator or recruiter. The implication that billable hours (litigating) drove what she earned is contrary to the implication that she was considered hired to "rainmake" (recruit). One of the two should be dropped, and a consistent story as to what work she was paid for should be developed. In 15 years I see not one case she worked on (or "specialized in law" on), though I see some client development: if so, then her earnings being tied to billable hours is a misleading implication.
  • Her battling the AEA is glossed as a (Gov.) "Clinton administration" initiative. The complete novelty of this approach (First Lady acting for administration), while mentioned in lead, needs to be re-emphasized on its first reference. I am unclear on whether AESC was public or private (needs specification, not just FN; I am not bothering to read most FNs until I can get the article itself actually read), which would tell me whether she officially served the administration, or whether she was privately advantaging her honorary office.
  • "prestige she lent the firm" is POV without explanation. Was it because of First Lady, or first lady partner, or that Wellesley critic? If corp boards, drop the first clause.
  • "She was also very influential in the appointment of state judges." Possibly the most noncommunicative sentence of all. Tells me absolutely nothing, and is not connected to prior or next sentence. FLs might be expected generically to have at least bedroom influence ("what do you think honey") in judgeship appointments; and the sentence says nothing to tell me any more than that generic idea. In all, the second graf of later AR years is very choppy.

General:

  • The organization fails muster. If the datestreams were all culled into a chrono section it would help greatly. Section 2 might better be reflowed into three sections: Marriage and family; First Lady of Arkansas, 1979-1981; and ditto, 1983-1992 (or 3). Her law career runs through each of these but need not be mentioned separately in head.
  • Article too long in all. Something has to give. And I think "controversies" would be much better than "Senate career"; summarizing the latter would be undue weight on her honorary years, but summarizing the former would not be UW and would be consistent with the Repubs.
    • This brought a smile to my face at the time. Many comments are of the form: "It's missing this, that, and the other thing; and oh by the way, it's too long." The article has since been shortened a bit by putting the Senate sections into WP:SUMMARY form, as indicated below. Wasted Time R 00:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm having such trouble digging up abortion/pro-choice comments in this piece, yet Hillary is a Top-10 abortion advocate and even a separate "Hillary on abortion" article could be considered (or at least "positions of Hillary"). Reliable sources on abortion are so easy I won't bother (I already quoted one in archive). This is certainly underemphasized in text (one line, and not even using the word "abortion" once!), but it is more a part of her than her children's advocacy.
  • Political positions is not only way way underrepresented, but it consists completely of 3rd-party (hearsay) perceptions of others about her, and completely of rankings rather than positions themselves! And the first six are all about the liberal-conservative spectrum, leaving only four positions in all! This is a thoroughly unworked section, is nothing but a list, and ought to be a full article in itself (she does state her positions on her site if you can parse them). Much more its own article than cattle futures.
  • A short controversy list follows. When mentioned in main article, these can be linked to their individual sections of the controversy article and only a brief gloss of both sides of the controversy would be needed for most of them. It is clear by review that many are underrepresented, while the cattle futures having its own article is overrepresenting. The fact that the list is so long, and that many more people will be searching for a list of HRC controversies than will search for, say, HRC legislative successes, means that making it a separate article is prudent. (+ means alluded in lead.)
    • As is stated above, and in the archives, the HRC articles explicitly do not have a controversies article, section, or list. Doing so is considered counter to WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Controversies are integrated into the main article text, or appropriate daughter article text, as they occur naturally (the same thing that real world biographies do); if they are large enough, they also have their own article. Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Ron Paul also follow this scheme. Other candidates do have separate controversies articles or sections; I would support those being dismantled and disbursed, as was done here. You are correct that some readers will find this treatment frustrating, but as I understand it Wikipedia is not meant to be one-stop shopping to find out everything negative that's ever been said about a person — "Show me the controversies, I don't care about all this biographical stuff!" Rest assured, there will be plenty of oppo campaign websites that will provide this service. Wasted Time R 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. + criticized Brooke at commencement
    1. I still need to do a bit more here, probably as a footnote in the main article. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. served communists, befriended Mitford
    1. "Served" is an overstatement; nature of law firm is already covered; Mitford had many activities outside of political affiliation, so befriending her doesn't add up to much. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. maiden name retention
    1. Already covered, in main text and footnote. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Governor/Rose conflict of interest
    1. Already mentioned in main article; to go much further would require a mini-essay on the nature of Arkansas politics at the time, which wasn't pretty. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. cattle futures 1978-79
    1. Already mentioned in main article as well as Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy.
  6. McCaw cellphone investment (same as cattle futures)
  7. + presidential policy prominence, 2-for-1
    1. Already mentioned in main article. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. + Travelgate (David Watkins)
    1. Aleady mentioned in main article, lots of coverage in White House travel office controversy. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Eleanor Roosevelt seances
    1. Already covered in main text and footnote. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. + Vince Foster (1: relationship too close?; 2: the "suicide", 3: file removal)
    1. 1 flunks on WP:BLP (e.g. Bernstein thinks no); 2 is for the conspiracy nuts in Death of Vince Foster; 3 is mentioned here but needs to be better covered in either Whitewater (controversy) or its own article, it's a major outage. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Arkancide theory generally (1: Ron Brown, 2: Willey's cat, 3: 50 mystery deaths)
    1. Only in Jerry Falwell's fever dreams, wherever he his now. WP:BLP rules here. We do have Clinton Chronicles, alas. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. universal healthcare failure
    1. I need to add something in main article on the criticism of her task force for not being open. Otherwise covered in main article and 1993 Clinton health care plan. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Troopergate
    1. Only in Bob Tyrrell's fever dreams. Weakly sourced, fails WP:BLP. We do have Troopergate. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. + Whitewater (1: subpoenaed for involvement; 2: records appeared 1 day after SOL)
    1. Discussed here and in Whitewater (controversy). The latter is a gawdawful mess, unfortunately. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Webb Hubbell
    1. I presume you mean charges that she helped him find work once he left the USG, as implicit hush money for not spilling the goods on Rose billing records or something ... will look at it. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Jorge Cabrera
    1. Who? You got me stumped on this one. And here I thought I was a world-class Hillary controversy expert ... Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      1. This article from the NY Times should help on the WTF is that.[2] The cliff notes is that he's a convicted drug smuggler that paid $20,000 to the DNC to attend a fundraiser with Al Gore and to attend a Christmas party hosted by Hillary Clinton. He also got an invite to the Inaugural Ball, couldn't make it unfortunately as he was a guest of the federal penitentiary system at the time. Not sure it is entirely notable for an article on Hillary Clinton though.--Bobblehead (rants) 05:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Huang Chung Lippo tiptoe
    1. What's the charge here? 1996 United States campaign finance controversy, which is FA, doesn't mention anything about HRC in connection with Lippo. The usual charge re HRC in this area relates to seats on trade missions, which is mentioned in 1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy#Ron_Brown_and_the_Department_of_Commerce; not much there, doesn't merit attention here. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. + Filegate
    1. Mentioned here and in depth in White House FBI files controversy. The one case of the Whitewater IC investigations where she got pretty much completely exonerated. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. + Lewinsky
    1. A whole section on it here, but mostly a Bill thing, obviously. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. kisses Soha Arafat & Mideast record
    1. The former is covered in United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2000#The_early_Clinton_campaign (even a photo!); might merit a quick mention in the main article. The latter is covered in Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Arab-Israeli_conflict, if that's what you mean by "Mideast". Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Alinsky paper suppression
    1. Mentioned in main article, covered in depth in Hillary Rodham senior thesis. One of the stupidest things the Clinton White House ever did. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Gary Aldrich allegations (1: arguments with SS agents, 2: obscene Xmas ornaments)
    1. Weakly sourced, flunks WP:BLP. But go for it in Gary Aldrich. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. strong abortion advocacy generally
    1. See above, not convinced. But feel free to add to Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton#Abortion, the more specific speech quotes etc. there the better. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. + NY carpetbagging
    1. Mentioned in main article, covered in greater depth in [[United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2000. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. booed after 9/11
    1. Covered in Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. + war flipflop ("would not have started this war", but she voted to)
    1. Covered here, and in more depth in Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton. If it blows up as a huge campaign issue, might someday get its own article. Wasted Time R 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. campaign financing (1: big spender, 2: Peter Paul, 3: Hsu)
    1. 1) covered in this article, could expand in United States Senate election in New York, 2006; 2) covered in Gala Hollywood Farewell Salute to President Clinton and United States Senate election in New York, 2000, and since case was thrown out by court and her finance director acquited, doesn't merit attention in main article; 3) mentioned in main article and covered in great depth in Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008#The_Norman_Hsu_affair. Wasted Time R 02:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. thoughtless comments (1: stand by your man, 2: cookies & teas, 3: vast right-wing conspiracy, 4: "FJB" etc. Paul Fray)
    1. 1 & 2) covered in main article, mostly in footnotes; 3) in main article and Vast right-wing conspiracy; 4) we used to have it, but junked it; flunks WP:BLP as too weakly sourced. Wasted Time R 02:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. prevarication/misleading (1: Legal Services Corp chair dates, 2: affirmed Bill's Flowers denial, 3: Travelgate findings, 4: misled by Bill over Lewinsky?, 5: "Hillary" origin, 6: "I don't recall", 7: Chelsea's location during 9/11, 8: see "Yankees Fan" for more)

John J. Bulten 06:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC) -- restored Wasted Time R 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_8&oldid=1053325608"