Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

With regards to "Very Long" tag

However, there might be a lot to say about Senator Clinton! The wikipedia Yom Kippur War article is long yet it was a very short event of days, compared to Clinton's nearly 60 years of life. Vote: Do not shorten for the sake of shortening.Dereks1x 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the "Very Long" tag may date back to before when material was split off into subarticles. The article is still kind of long even after that, but manageable I think. However imagine what will happen if she gets elected President! All that has come before will be dwarfed by the new material to come.

Regarding the "CV section" that you (User:Dereks1x) have been trying to get in, it doesn't do much good buried late in the article. If we are going to add something like that, it should go into the infobox at the start of the article. Then it could have a standard, prominent presentation for all politicians. But you'd have to campaign with the infobox maintainers to get this accepted. Wasted Time R 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was orginally very confused about her background because it takes work to figure out when she was practicing law and if it overlapped with being First Lady. A short list of jobs is useful. What's there to hide. She was never in prison. She worked for a prestigous law firm.Dereks1x 01:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Her practicing law did overlap with being First Lady of Arkansas, but not with being First Lady of the United States. Wasted Time R 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The tag is meant for the article page, not the talk page. The article is currently around 67kb, which is long. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Really being wikipedia NPOV: we need to treat people fairly, not have a double standard

The opening paragraph has been very slightly modified to match that of Christopher Dodd, another Democratic presidential contender. We should treat them fairly and the same. We still give Senator Clinton the honor of mentioning that she's first lady and has several first.

I don't see how you can be against it unless you aren't fair. If this isn't the case and you want to change it, explain why inconsistency is fair?Dereks1x 01:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you picking only Dodd? Look at Barack Obama, John Edwards, John Kerry ... I've looked at `1/3 to 1/2 of all the Senator articles, and all the 2008 presidential candidate articles, and there is absolutely no consistency among them in their intros. But let me ask you this, what is your objection to the current intro? Wasted Time R 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dodd is from CT, that borders NY. First, we make consistency between Dodd and Clinton, then we'll worry about the others? I can't see how you can be for inconsistency. It just isn't fair! And fairness and NPOV is what wikipedia is all about. What's so bad with Dodd's intro? It isn't negative or inaccurate.Dereks1x 01:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency of arrangement of neutral and unquestioned biographical details in an intro is not a matter of fairness or NPOV - it's just plain old inconsistency - so your argument is a red herring. Your chance of getting all these articles to have consistent intros is zero, take my word for it. Your revised intro to this article wasn't as good as the existing one, because it was a bit redundant and had faulty wikilinking. Again, what is your agenda here? What do you think is wrong with what we have? Wasted Time R 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, Dodd is called a politician, which he is. Hillary's occupation as politician is missing. Someone is really a politician when they run for more than one office. Jesse Ventura is difficult to call a politician cuz he just ran for one office then went back into wrestling or related jobs.Dereks1x 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about Ventura. He was a mayor before he was governor and he was also involved in the shaping of third-party political organizations. So he is a politician just as much as HRC or anyone else. For the most part, however, I think it is redundant to say someone is a politician when you say they are a senator and running for president - obviously they are politicians. I just sampled a bunch of articles, and maybe 1/3 use 'politician' in the intro. Being Wikipedia, it's very inconsistent - while Ventura, who has had many other jobs, gets the label, Charles Schumer, who's never had any other job, does not. Trying to find consistency in Wikipedia will drive you insane, believe me, and battles over intros are always more trouble than they are worth. There are better things to do in Wikipedia. The article on the Clinton health care plan, for example, needs much expansion and citing; it was a major, major issue at the time with a long-lasting effect on Hillary's career, and it's bound to get renewed attention during the campaign. Wasted Time R 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you seem completely clueless about wikilinking - you do things like "[[First Lady|First Lady]]" which means you don't understand piping, and things like "[[female]]" which means you don't recognize common English words. As a matter of friendly advice, learn more about the Wikipedia markup language and style guides before attempting to change the intros to high-profile articles. Wasted Time R 01:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You want NPOV in an article? Easiest thing in the world: have no opinion in it at all. Simply write the facts. You can't argue proven facts. (Although, the fact that so-and-so suspect such-and-such can be a proven fact.) If you happen to be writing about a criminal by doing so, then you might just be (because all you post are facts). If not, merrily mention "this is a rumor as stated by...", and then the article is clean. Opinions can be disputed, they are controversial, they can be argued, and they have no solid substance (and I personally think they don't belong in articles).

By writing in this manner, articles are dispute proof, (unless an opposing retard has a problem with proven facts). Colonel Marksman 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement that "As First Lady of the United States, she took a more prominent position in policy matters than any before her" provides an argument that can never be proven and should not exist in a encyclopedic entry. I am going to change it to "many before her" and would like for someone to sift through the article and snip out all such comments.Mrathel 00:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Mrathel

Which First Ladies do you think took more prominent positions in policy matters? This means public ("prominent"), not behind the scenes, positions. Wasted Time R 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to mention that she's the front runner in the presidental election?

I would like to suggest that we consider being carefull with statements that she is the front runner in the election for 2008. We don't want to be like the media and attempt to call an election before it is done. We need to be a neutral as possible. I have not made any changes in the article; I am just opening this for discussion here. --Allyn 02:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some other editors have wanted to put this into the intro, which I oppose. But I see nothing wrong with mentioning it in the Presidential race section. We're not "calling" anything, just describing a simple fact. She is currently, by any metric (polls, money, organization, name recognition) the front runner. Doesn't mean she'll win; Howard Dean was the front runner during part of 2003, look what happened to him. Wasted Time R 02:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree she is the frontrunner by any objective measure, but I don't know if it should be mentioned here. Maybe it's enough to just say she leads the field in opinion polls and fundraising. The word "frontrunner" actually sounds kind of sensational, not the kind of word an encyclopedia might use. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on this either way. — Kelw (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I nuked it. Wasted Time R 02:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Portrait Picture captions

It seems to me like they're mixed up. The one that says "Portrait of First Lady Hillary Clinton" looks like the one of Senator Hillary Clinton and the one that says "Portrait of Senator Hillary Clinton" looks like the one of First Lady Hillary Clinton. I can tell by the hair. However, I'm only 99% certain and not 100% certain, so correct me if I'm wrong please. In the meantime, I'll just switch those captions. Armyrifle 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the portraits are mixed up. It makes sense because the First Lady portrait appears to be set inside the White House, whereas the Capitol building is visible in the background of the Senator portrait. But I admit I'm not 100 percent sure about this either. — Kelw (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been worried about these two too, and did some research. The Image:Hillary Clinton first lady portraitHRC.jpg one, where she has her hand on a chair on the right and there's a White House plate on the left, is indeed her official White House First Lady portrait, painted in 2003 (check the date on a large image of it) by Simmie Knox [1] (who also did Bill's portrait) and unveiled (per custom, well after they had left the White House) in June 2004 [2] [3]. The late date of the painting is why she has her "Senator" look about her. I will update the article to better label it, and try to figure out where the other painting is from. Wasted Time R 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The other one, where she looks much younger and the Capitol is in the background on the lower right, is indeed mis-captioned. It was painted by Igor V. Babailov and is titled "Inauguration Day, 1993"; the Capitol is in it because that's where Presidential inaugurations take place (A ha!). It currently resides in the Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas.[4] I will correct its caption in the article. Wasted Time R 12:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not sure when the photo of the three of them returning to the White House after getting off Marine One is from. The caption says 1993 ... maybe, or maybe later. Couldn't find the image elsewhere and the source of it, http://web.archive.org/web/20001003122428/www1.whitehouse.gov/media/jpg/hrcfamily.jpg, doesn't state a date. Wasted Time R 13:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And for my final observation, if you do Google Images searches for Hillary, be prepared to see a lot of weird stuff. Wasted Time R 13:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! So I guess U.S. Senators don't have official portraits, right? — Kelw (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure ... they do have an official photographic portrait, see http://clinton.senate.gov/about/photos/ — it's what we use in the article's infobox. Do they eventually get a painting portrait too? Or maybe only if they hold some high Senate rank, like Majority/Minority Leader or Committee Chair? Dunno. Wasted Time R 13:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please add the link to Ido Wikipedia

io:Hillary Clinton - thanks, io:User:Joao Xavier 23:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wasted Time R 13:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

FLIP-FLOP

College Republican turned Democrate? How does that happen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.62.224 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Things like this never happen naturally. Must be alien implants. Wasted Time R 16:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

When did they put the alien implants in Ol Commie/GOP Eyes?. I think it was Miss Farrow. Gareth E Kegg 17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a political discussion board. If you have something to offer wikipedia through this section, please state it now because this is going no where. Please don't ever post sections like this again. Badluckprince 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

The External Links has "Official Links" and "Unofficial Links". This really makes no sense. First off, under official links is the voting record maintained by the Washington Post. Last time I checked, the Washington Post wasn't anything official. It also gives the illusion that "official" sites have more legitimacy than "unofficial" sites. The legitimacy of any site is really something for each person to decide, not wikipedia. I do think, however, that any links listed should have clear descriptions so that someone looking at the link knows right away who is behind it, since Hillary Clinton is a controversial topic. I hope to work on the links to add more and improve the description of them, however, I'm holding off until I'm more clear on the subject. This article is something that must be handled carefully due to the emotions that can get involved in politics. Fanra 18:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I changed the External Links as I proposed above. They appear fine now and I consider this issue closed. Fanra 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Move to Hilary Clinton?

The article Hilary Clinton simply redirects here, since she is the only hilary clinton that is on wikipedia, why is the article titled Hilary Rodham Clinton?

Because Hillary Rodham Clinton is the name she uses, and after much discussion (look in archives), it was agreed that this was the proper name to use as the main title. Of course there are several redirects so people looking under HIllary Clinton will have no problem finding the page. Tvoz |talk 00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_5#Requested_move for a vote that was held on this. By a large margin, the page stays where it is. Wasted Time R 01:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Signature Block?

Why does her signature appear in her information data block? After looking at numerous political profiles within Wiki, she is the only non-US president or US Senator to have this feature appear. Also, no other First Ladies have their signature appear in their Wiki biographies either. Seems to me that this feature is unique to those who have held the highest office in the nation--not Senator Clinton. I think it would be more appropiate to show her signature if she is elected president. TucsonUte 07:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your survey was incomplete. Just at a glance, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, and Barack Obama all have signatures in their infoboxes too, and none of them have been president. Wasted Time R 10:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Faulty info box

Hillary Clinton's unique status as the only First Lady to win to an elected office has created an formatting problem for the Infox box on this page. From what I can see, none of the templates for elected or appointed officials allow for this to be displayed properly. While her tenure as first lady is referred to in the current format, she is not identified with the words "First Lady of the United States", and since this is not an "office", I'm not sure how to do it. Maybe a brand-new template needs to be created, I don't know. But the current one is insufficient. ShutEmDown 17:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Senator should get preference over First Lady, since both more current and more important. Wasted Time R 19:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Marriage

Shouldn't something be mentioned about the fact her "marriage" to Bill is a sort of political charade. Just a thought, otherwise a very good article I thought.

There is a line "Hillary Clinton faced both support and criticism for remaining in the marriage" in the main article, underneath which is a link to Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies#Staying_in_marriage_to_Bill_Clinton, which mentions your theory of the marriage. Wasted Time R 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

May 7th Edit by mjhasley

Someone with editing authority, please remove the gratuitous descriptor "great" inserted in the identification paragraph of this article.

It is hard to believe that this is acceptable practice.

Gilblack 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Gilblack

Vandalism

Again, someone with authority to edit, please undo the changes made earlier today to the second paragraph under Early Life and Education. Perhaps this page should be upgraded to complete protected status to prevent further vandalism. Barondex 18:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I cleared it up, if we fully protected it, then only administrators could edit the page. But I do have this page on my watchlist, and anybody that is waiting four days to edit this page or any other semi-protected page with the sole purpose of vandalism should probably be blocked instantly for disruption as they have made it clear that is their sole intention on Wikipedia. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I commented out the "editprotected" tag that was above in this section - this article is under semi-protection, not full protection, which means that IP addresses and new accounts (<4days) cannot edit, but all others can. We don't need an admin to step in as the tag says - as per Darthgriz, this page is actively watched so if an IP address or new acct have a legitimate edit to propose, they can post here and any one of many editors will take care of it. Tvoz |talk 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA/R Good Article Review requested: Image Problems

This article was recently promoted as a Good Article. However, there are some issues that seem to indicate that this promotion was inappropriate. Specifically, there are several problematic images which are in direct contravention of the Wikipedia's policy on the use of copyright images. These images must be removed or replaced with free alternatives or the GA status will be delisted:

• Image:Rodham family portrait 2.jpg - No copyright status listed, suspect this is copyright and NOT covered by fair use.
• Image:Clintons2004convention.jpg - Image is copyright and being used in contravention of policy. Specifically, the image tag says that the image is only to be used to illustrate the "object in question". The 2004 Democratic National Convention is not an object, it is an event. Also, Hillary and Bill Clinton are not objects, they are living people. As living people, it is likely that a suitable free image of their likeness can be created in the future, and thus there can be no fair use claim of this image for that reason.
• Image:Hillary Clinton New Hampshire.JPG - Image link is broken, I suspect it was deleted for the reasons listed above.

Additionally, there are referencing issues, specifically, these paragraphs have no citations to indicate where the facts they report come from:

• Hillary Diane Rodham was born at Edgewater Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, and was raised in a Methodist family in Park Ridge, Illinois. Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, was a son of English immigrants and operated a small business in the textile industry. Her mother, Dorothy Emma Howell Rodham, was a homemaker. She has two younger brothers, Hugh and Tony.
• Rodham later became one of two female faculty members at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law, where Bill Clinton was teaching as well.
• On October 11, 1975, Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton were married in Fayetteville, Arkansas; she kept her name as Hillary Rodham. They lived there briefly and then moved to the state capital of Little Rock, from which Bill conducted his first campaign, for U.S. Congress. Rodham joined the venerable Rose Law Firm in 1976, specializing in intellectual property while working pro bono in child advocacy. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the board of the Legal Services Corporation.
• In the White House, Clinton placed donated handicrafts of contemporary American artisans, such as pottery and glassware, on rotating display in the state rooms. She oversaw the restoration of the Blue Room on the state floor, and the redecoration of the Treaty Room into the presidential study on the second floor. Clinton hosted many large-scale events at the White House, such as a St. Patrick's Day reception, a state dinner for visiting Chinese dignitaries, a contemporary music concert that raised funds for music education in public schools, a New Year's Eve celebration at the turn of the twenty-first century, and a state dinner honoring the bicentennial of the White House in November of 2000
• Clinton's opponents continued to focus on the carpetbagging issue throughout the campaign and during debates, but exit polls revealed that more than two-thirds of voters regard it as unimportant.
• In the Senate, Clinton sits on five committees with nine subcommittee assignments in all: the Committee on Armed Services, with three subcommittee assignments on Airland, on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, and on Readiness and Management Support; the Committee on Environment and Public Works, with three subcommittee assignments on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety, on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, and on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment; the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, with two subcommittee assignments on Aging and on Children and Families; and the Special Committee on Aging.
• In 1996, Clinton presented a vision for the children of America in the book It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us. The book was a New York Times Best Seller, and Clinton received the Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album in 1997 for the book's audio recording. The title refers to an African proverb that states "It takes a village to raise a child".

This article is quite good in places, but these problems seem to indicate that it does not meet all requirements of the good article criteria and this needs fixing ASAP. If these fixes are not done in a timely manner, it should be delisted. This discussion will be carried on at good article review. Please make any comments there if you please. Thank you and happy editing!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response in beginning to address these issues. Please feel free to strike through the fixes above ( as I did with the 2 you already fixed) as you address them. Once these are all fixed, just comment on WP:GA/R that they HAVE all been fixed, and I will change my vote to "keep" as a GA. Good luck, and thanks once again for prompt attention to this!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Delisted and renominated

Per discussion and consensus at WP:GA/R this article has been delisted and sent back to the WP:GAC nomination page for another review. It appears that the article was passed WITHOUT a formal review, and it was sent back to the nomination page to seek one. It should be noted, for the benefit of whoever reviews this article, that a partial review, with several fixes needed, was left above. Please consider this when making your final decision to pass or fail the article. The results of the discussion have been archived at: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 18. Good luck and happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to easily meet the GA criteria, IMO. It is true that it still needs some referencing, but considering its length and the large number of references that it does have, the number of unreferenced statements is relatively small, and none of the statements noted above are controversial statements. If the image issues still exist, I'd say delete the questionable images and promote the article to GA. I agree that it is not ready for FA consideration yet. -- Ssilvers 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Names of Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton

1. Birth to 1982: Hillary Rodham (35 years incl 7 years of Clinton marriage). 2. 1982 - 1993: Hillary Clinton (11 years). 3. 1993 - 1999: Hillary Rodham Clinton (6 years). 4. 1999 - 2000: Hillary (1 year). 5. 2000 - present: Hillary Clinton (7 years so far).

Note that:

(a) "Rodham" is preferred generally (41/60 years total and 13/32 years during Clinton marriage); (b) "Rodham" is subtracted and/or "Clinton" added when election outcome is in doubt (1982-1993, 1999-2000, 2000-present); (c) "Rodham" is added when election outcome is not in doubt (1993-1999).

Analysis:

If Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2008, she will become President Hillary Rodham Clinton *or* President Hillary Rodham. If she is not elected President in 2008, she will remain Hillary Clinton. If she then runs in 2012, she may choose "Mrs. Bill Clinton."

(UNRELATED: Note that Chelsea Clinton was born in 1980, and therefore she will meet the Constitutional age requirement of 35 in time for the 2016 Presidential elections.)

Jessemckay 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, your history of her name usage is quite wrong in several places. Wasted Time R 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

unfettered free market

• Someone felt they had to add, "Clinton said she agrees with the quote from Alan Arenholt that she used in her book, It Takes a Village: "The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation."

While it may be important to her Political views, the person who removed it is correct that it belongs in Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, not here. Thus, when the person who put it in, added it back in after being told this, they ignored the basis of this article. This article isn't about every single thing she has said and done. It is supposed to be a broad outline of her with the idea that if you want to know details, you visit the links that are clearly and easily placed for that purpose. Otherwise this article would be 50 pages long. If we put this into the Political positions section, then we would also have to add every single position she takes, which is EXACTLY what Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton is for. I can't make this any clearer. I'm going to remove the sentence and hope the person placing it can understand this. Fanra 14:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fanra, for a very good explication of what I meant in my edit summary when I removed it. You are completely correct.Tvoz |talk 19:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it belongs there and not here. Also, I modified it there, because Clinton's meaning is unclear — does she not like the free market, or is she simply acknowledging that creative destruction has been at work? Wasted Time R 16:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Has she ever made any further statements on the subject? --Gloriamarie 03:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson endorsement

• The breaking news today is that porn star Jenna Jameson has endorsed Sen. Clinton's campaign for the presidency. This is huge. Look for young men to flock to Hillary and to see her as a sudden sex symbol. Also, there is rumor that Jameson will play Hillary in a yet to be filmed porn film. I can't find the source on that however. The suposed name of the movie is "Hillary's Sexy Sweet Revenge" and details her way of "getting back at Bill" for his affairs. Interesting. EdRooney 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

→ 20:48, 17 May 2007 Tvoz (Talk | contribs) (27,871 bytes) (Undid revision 131623299 by EdRooney (talk) go play somewhere else)
→ restored by me

Apology to EdRooney - I thought it was vandalism, as your entry had no citation and the whole thing is pretty ludicrous. In any case, I do not think this is a real endorsement and I do not think it is a notable fact for this article (see below). Tvoz |talk 03:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jameson really did endorse Hillary, see [5], and this has been noticed by Fox News among others, see [6]. This is not necessarily insignificant - the porno industry's customer base is huge and Jameson has a big following. For instance, this could help Hillary shed her sometime-image as a stodgy scold. I don't think it belongs in the main article, but I am going to add it to the campaign article. Wasted Time R 01:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Surprising. I would've thought that Jenna would endorse Ron Paul! But seriously, would people actually listen to her and vote accordingly?---Gloriamarie 03:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When someone says "I like Hillary", that is kind of far from a political endorsement. That FOx picked up on it kind of speaks for itself - is this a serious political statement or is it a publicity gag - is it being used to embarrass the candidate? - and does it really have any significance? Tvoz |talk 03:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several kinds of endorsements of candidates. One is endorsements from other politicians, which WP seems to be covering heavily, both in individual campaign articles and in Congressional endorsements for the 2008 presidential election. Another is endorsements by interest groups, e.g. Hillary has been endorsed by NOW. Another is newspaper editorial page endorsements, which are traditionally viewed as important but come much later in the cycle. Finally there are celebrity supports and endorsements, which while somewhat less formal are still important. Some voters may be more guided by these than any of the others. The Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article mentions that Obama has been endorsed by Oprah Winfrey, as well it should, as she is an influential figure with a large and devoted audience. It also mentions support for him from George Clooney and Halle Berry. So I've modified Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 to try to begin capturing all of these kinds of endorsements. Wasted Time R 11:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I like what you did there - but I do think there's a big difference between Oprah and Jameson, and I would not include the latter. Tvoz |talk 02:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed DC Bar Exam

FAILED BAR EXAM. This piece of information is relevant to her career as a lawyer and her personal life. On page 64 of Hillary's memoir, "Living History", she confesses to having flunked the D.C. bar exam:

"I was lonely and missed Bill more than I could stand. I had taken both the Arkansas and the Washington, D.C., bar exams during the summer, but my heart was pulling me toward Arkansas. When I learned that I had passed in Arkansas but failed in D.C., I thought that maybe my test scores were telling me something."

The exam was in 1973. Somebody better put this in. -Signed [20:12, 19 May 2007 65.94.148.147]

If it's so important, you put it in. Wasted Time R 21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a member here nor do I wish to be. Also, I don't appreciate the condescending attitude. I have made several useful contributions to wikipedia , even this article in particular. And it is important, so someone may as well add it if I personally do not. Signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.148.147 (talk • contribs)

Sorry for what you perceive as condenscension (sp?), but this is a DIY project if there ever was one. Making requests for others to do something works well in some more traditional venues, but is near useless here. Even if someone put it in for you, someone else could take it out because they think its inclusion is unnotable or unfair. The only way to be sure it stays in is to watchlist it and revert any edit that removes it. In other words, it's a non-trivial amount of effort, and no one is going to do that effort other than you. That's just the nature of this particular beast. Wasted Time R 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I question the importance of this factoid, and if it is to be included, then there has to be a thorough check of whether she later became a member of any other bar associations. BUt on its own, what does it signify? Tvoz |talk 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be set in context. Bar exams are often notoriously difficult two-day affairs, and I believe the failure rate for first-time takers in any particular state are surprisingly high. For those taking two at the same time, the failure rate on one is likely even higher. In other words, what HRC did is no disgrace. Wasted Time R 02:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I was a bout to say the same thing about taking 2 at once. Tvoz |talk 02:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to the allegation that it will just result in someone else editing it out, I was the person who contributed the citation for Hillary's participation in the Barry Goldwater campaign of 1964. That's the fifth citation in the article, if you're interested. That was pretty significant, and no one has removed it. Secondly, the fact that Hillary failed the DC and passed the Arkansas Bar is relevant to the fact that she ended up moving to Arkansas, to be with Bill. She writes about this in her book. Because the DC Bar has a comparatively low passage rate (63%), this bit of information does not indicate POV. It can simply be taken as a fact. It belongs under the heading talking about her personal life, academic career, and legal career. I take extraordinary issue with the last two comments here, who are not assessing the fact's worth, but rather extraneous implications. Signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.148.147 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the article needs something more about her major life decision to go to Arkansas rather than establish a career in D.C. Based on the above quote, it sounds like her head must have been pulling her towards Washington. Next time I'm in a library I'll read more on this in Living History. But the bar exam failure can't have been the determining factor here; after all, had she been set on a D.C. career, she would have simply would have studied more and sat for the exam again, something many lawyers do. Wasted Time R 12:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I see no problem putting this in, if it relates to the article and fits in. Due to the size limits, we can't put in everything about her. I think some people were put off by the words, "she confesses to having flunked" as if there was something shameful about it. She wasn't confessing to flunking but that she "was lonely and missed Bill". If the fact that she flunked the exam was the major reason she decided that she should move back to Arkansas then it is relevant, otherwise it is not. Fanra 12:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are people on wikipedia who are watching this article for the sole purpose of pushing a pro-Hillary agenda. The purpose of this bit of information is not to promote a POV. My reason for wanting to put this in is not because I am anti-Hillary. I'm positive it is noted in Michael Jordan's wikipedia page that he was cut from the Varsity basketball team and that he was a sub-par baseball player! It is a critical part of her life, as expressed above. Therefore, the statement that "Hillary Clinton failed the Washington D.C. Bar in 1973 while passing the Arkansas Bar was a factor in her decision to move to Arkansas" must go in. Don't qualify it with the useless speculation that the bar was hard, or that she didn't study enough, or that she really wanted to be with Bill. What if her decision to be with Bill came after her bar performance? We don't know. All we have are the facts. Signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.213.84 (talk • contribs)

Here we go again. "there are people on wikipedia who are watching this article for the sole purpose of pushing a pro-Hillary agenda" - would that be as opposed to there being people who are watching this article for the sole purpose of pushing an anti-Hillary agenda? This is tiresome, really. Just because objections are raised to an edit that you think is vital, doesn't mean the people who don't agree have an agenda. Obviously Hillary herself has no problem with stating that she failed the DC bar exam - this is hardly such hot news that it "must go in". My sense is that it is a trivial matter, but more importantly, we'd have to see if it is being pulled in out of context and would need to give a thorough description of her bar status - did she take any other bar exams in her lifetime, did she pass them or fail them, where is she a member of the bar, etc. Not just this one isolated point. What is signiificant in her life is that she decided to move to Arkansas to be with Bill rather than pursue a career in DC at that time. Surely you can recognize metaphor - "When I learned that I had passed in Arkansas but failed in D.C., I thought that maybe my test scores were telling me something." - or do you think that she thinks her test scores were actually speaking to her? Insisting on including this is ridiculous, if you ask me, considering how much we've had to leave off - but if it feels so important to you, then do some research and determine the entire history of her bar testing and joining, and write it up. Because pulling in one perhaps partial "fact" is not encyclopedic, and feels like agenda-pushing to me. (One other thing - typing "signed" doesn't do it - you need to actually type in 4 tildes or click on them in the "Insert" box just below the "Save page" series of buttons where it says "sign your username". That will save your fellow editors from having to go back and find who said what and add it. Better yet, create a username and your private IP addresses won't show. But that's up to you. Thank you.) Tvoz |talk 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I will once again argue that it should go in. Her page pretty much jumps from graduating law school to when she began practicing. No mention is made of her thought process as to where she should go to practice law. Taking the bar exam is a significant event in the life of a lawyer, and this is no ordinary lawyer. Hillary is a distinguished lawyer, who was twice named to the 100 most influential lawyers in America list. http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43 What is being pulled out of context? Hillary flunked the DC bar and that was a factor in her decision to move to Arkansas. That's objective. I've already argued enough for its relevancy. MKING007 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up - I've now added some material on her Arkansas vs. D.C. career decision, and included the bar exam results in that. Wasted Time R 19:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

infobox

Heading the health care taskforce is not an "office" to be included in the infobox. I think even the First Lady group is stretching it a bit, but I don't really object to that. The health care task force is important, and should be discussed in detail in her article(s), but not in the infobox. Tvoz |talk 15:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But a bigger question: do we really want the First Lady boxes? Are they necessary or even appropriate? It's not really an office she was elected or even appointed to - it's something else - and to have a string of them seems wrong to me. HRC was elected Senator - that is her current occupation and it's about her - FL is more about her husband than about her (did she have a choice in accepting the job?). Laura Bush has only FL of US, not her previous FL of Texas role, and that's who she is now. Later, I'm not so sure, but I doubt she'll become a Senator or similar, so it isn't likely to be an issue, and then we'd keep the FL box I guess. But HRC is a different story, and I would certainly remove Arkansas from here and probably US too - what do others think? (Note that if we do keep the FLArkansas boxes, the name "Gay Daniels" is correct.) Tvoz |talk 18:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe FL of Arkansas box could be moved by the US one should remain [23:00, 20 May 2007 K157]

Keep the FL of US one - it really is a high-visibility position, even of a somewhat unique nature, and the general public is always well aware of who the FL is and has opinions on them, and almost every FL of US has a substantial article in WP. Junk the FL of Arkansas ones - most people who no clue who their governor's spouse is, it's usually a low-visibility position, and many WP "articles" on governor's spouses seem to be redirects back to the governors' articles. Also the term "first lady" is partly obsolete at the state level, since there have been a number of "first husbands" of governors by now. Wasted Time R 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me Tvoz |talk 03:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the husbands of Govs are usually the "First Gentleman" of their state