Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:01, 4 December 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hillary Clinton. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hillary Clinton at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. United States: Arkansas This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Template:Wiki Project Cape Cod and the Islands

Hillary Clinton has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result May 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 14, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted June 7, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 14, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 21, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept February 28, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept May 27, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Eve Fairbanks (2008-04-09). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (2008-04-03). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. Brooke Gladstone (2008-04-04). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. John J. Miller (2008-04-21). "Liberal Web". National Review. Pascal Harter (2008-04-08). The World Today, BBC World Service. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Jesse Brown (2008-04-10). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (2008-04-12). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. . Jeopardy!. 2008-05-07. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Kelly Heyboer (2008-05-28). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (2008-05-28). "one of two pieces aired". WCBS Newsradio 880.

view · edit FAQ Q1: Was there a dispute about what the article title should be? A1: Yes. From the early days on it was "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but over the years there were many formal requests for moves to change it to "Hillary Clinton". Discussions found no consensus on the article name until June 2015, when one found consensus and the article was moved to its current title. See the "This page was previously nominated to be moved" box elsewhere on this page for full details and links to the discussions – note some have to be revealed under the "Older discussions" link. There are strong feelings on both sides and discussions get progressively longer and more heated. Q2: The section on her 2016 presidential campaign leaves out some important things that have happened. What gives? A2: The main article is tight on space and the presidential campaign section is intentionally brief and kept to what is biographically most relevant. The daughter article Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 has a much fuller treatment of the campaign and is where the greatest level of detail should go, especially anything describing the day-to-day, to-and-fro, ups-and-downs of a campaign. Q3: This article is POV! It's biased {for, against} her! It reads like it was written by {her PR team, Republican hatchet men}! A3: Complaints of bias are taken very seriously, but must be accompanied by specific areas of concern or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements do not help editors. Edits that add {{pov}} tags without providing a detailed explanation on the talk page will likely be reverted. Q4: Where is the article or section that lists her controversies? A4: There isn't one. All controversial material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article (including sometimes in Notes or footnotes) and in the various daughter articles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism and also raises significant WP:BLP concerns. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment – see here – and the same was done for other politicians' articles, including all the 2012 and 2016 candidates. This approach was also confirmed by the results of this AfD and this AfD. Q5: Something in the lead section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{citation needed}} tag on it. A5: This article, like many others on Misplaced Pages, uses the approach of no citations in the lead section, as everything in the lead should be found in the body of the article, along with its citation. See guideline: MOS:LEADCITE.

Equal treatment in candidate biography articles

It looks like Noroton has identified a number of examples of inappropriate POV/Soapboxing in articles about other people. Some of them really are quite egregious. He would do Misplaced Pages a great service to remove (or at least heavily trim) those digressions into third persons that partisans put into other politician articles. If Noroton does not get to it, I might make an effort myself to clean some of that up (obviously though, as we've seen here, cleaning up to encyclopedic standards can often meet great resistance from anti-Bio-Subject partisans).Unfortunately, I can't personally improve millions of articles at once, probably not even dozens where the subjects are living persons of high general interst. LotLE×talk 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC) -- From the Talk:Barack Obama page (diff)

One useful way of checking the neutrality of an article is looking at how similar articles are edited. Right now there's a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama (in fact, it's a long, ongoing debate taking up most of the page, but the active section right now is at the Attempt to build consensus on the details section. I looked through this McCain article and the ones on Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani to see how negative information was treated in each, particularly how much information was presented about people associated with the candidate. The debate over on the Obama page is about whether to include any information on people associated with him (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, specifically) and if so, how much information to include about each. My own opinion is that, since there are articles about each of these people and their relationship to the election, we can have a very small amount on each, but we should have just enough so that the reader immediately knows why the person has become controversial in the election. For Bill Ayers, for instance, people should know that he's controversial because he's said to be unrepentant about violence with the Weather Underground. Other opinions are that this description unnecessarily lengthens the article or has nothing to do with Obama or that it's an opinion, not a fact, that he's unrepentant. It would be useful if people interested in this page would participate in the discussion there, because, as the quote I've put at the top of this section shows, editors there may be coming here to make changes.

Here's what I found in looking into negative information in three similar articles, particularly as it relates to people associated with the candidate who have become controversial. I'm re-posting it here for the information of editors who are unlikely to see it at Talk:Barack Obama. Any comments about this comparison as it relates to this article would be useful on this page, of course, and any comments on how the Obama article should treat information on associates would best be posted on that page. Please keep in mind that whatever happens in that discussion may well affect this page, with a good number of editors willing to form a consensus that might force changes here. A centralized discussion on the common points may be best on that page, where it's already started:

• Hilary Rodham Clinton — numerous mentions of various people that put Clinton in a negative light. Regarding people associated in some way with Clinton:
  • The Presidential campaign of 2008 section has three sentences on Norman Hsu, who was certainly less close to Clinton than the Rev. Wright has been to Obama.
  • The same section has several sentences on comments by another Clinton associate who puts the candidate in a bad light: Bill Clinton's controversial comments about race and the campaign. Surely that is worth keeping in the article on Hilary Clinton.
  • The same section has two sentences on Geraldine Ferraro's comments that put the Clinton campaign, and by extension, Hilary Clinton, in a bad light in the eyes of some.
  • Regarding other negative information on Clinton (usually full paragraphs on each thing mentioned), there is the cattle futures contract (in two different places in the article), conflict-of-interest charges in Arkansas regarding the Rose Law Firm; controversy involving her term on the Wal-Mart board of directors; the controversy/investigation on missing legal papers in her East Wing White House office regarding the Whitewater controversy; and Clinton's sniper-fire gaffe during the campaign (a sentence).
• John McCain:
  • Information on Richard Keating (footnotes 84-87; John McCain#House and Senate career, 1982–2000 section: Amount of space: two paragraphs
  • ADDED POINT: The article does not mention the Rev. John C. Hagee whose controversial remarks about Catholics and about the Holocaust caused McCain to disassociated himself from the minister. The article also does not mention McCain's ties to a lobbyist that some suspected was having an affair with him. (Personally, I think the Hagee stuff belongs in that article, in a sentence or two, and a link to the lobbyist controversy article should also be there, but it's a point in favor of the exclusionist side in this discussion that those two people are not mentioned in the article.)
• Rudy Giuliani:
  • Rudy Giuliani#Early life and education: This section opens by telling the reader his father "had trouble holding a job and had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing" and worked as a Mafia enforcer for his brother-in-law who "ran an organized crime operation involved in loan sharking and gambling at a restaurant in Brooklyn." Mind you, this last quote is about Giuliani's uncle.
  • The Mayoral campaigns, 1989, 1993, 1997 section has a subsection called "Appointees as defendants" consisting of a paragraph each on scandals/controversies involving Russell Harding and Bernard Kerik, and the Kerik paragraph is preceded by: "Main article: Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik" Kerik is mentioned in at least two other places in the article. "Post-mayorality" section is one ("Politics" subsection), and the "Family" section, where the last paragraph is a sentence stating that Giuliani is godfather to Kerik's children.
  • Other negative information on Giuliani includes part of the Legal career section, which opens with details his draft deferment in a paragraph; another paragraph is devoted to criticism of his setting up public perp-walks for arrested Wall Street bigwigs and then eventually dropping prosecutions of them. That paragraph is larger than Giuliani's leading the prosecution in one of the biggest Mafia trials in history (perhaps the most important).

Presidential candidates are big boys (and a big girl), and they get tough treatment in the media because they are trying to get a very powerful, very important job. We don't overprotect them on Misplaced Pages just as the U.S. media and international media don't protect them. The exclusionist side of this discussion appears to want far higher standards for inclusion of information about Obama than we have for Hilary Clinton, John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani. This goes against both Misplaced Pages practice and policy & guidelines. Noroton (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dropping out

ABC is reporting that she will drop out of the race on Friday at a rally although the word likely is still not convincing enough to mention just yet. Remember yesterday about the report that she would drop out but immediately denied shortly after. But it is a heads up. --JForget 23:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Like you said, remember the bogus AP story yesterday. Reporters get rewarded for scoops; we get paid the same whether we're first or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you didn't get the memo announcing the raise? Tvoz/talk 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! ... by the way, do you or anyone know why MiszaBot has stopped working on this page? No archiving since April, and there are some old threads above ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know but I could archived some of it right now by myself.--JForget 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's better when the bot does it, because it creates an index too. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Looks like the archiver is a separate bot, that has been running, so it should index archive 12 tonight. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to send a message to Misza13 about that matter before I saw that new bot. So I guess we will have to archive manually now. --JForget 23:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've only left a commented out note on our campaign article about the report for now until more media (i.e CNN, CBC, NBC, BBC) will mention it on theirs home page or a real announcement. CTV has also mention of it in their headlines. --JForget 23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't do bots. Tvoz/talk 04:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, Clinton isn't dropping out. She's suspending her campaign; she's no longer running, but she's still a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination (just like Ron Paul is, for the Republican pres nomination). PS- Ya gotta hand it to her & her supporters fighting spirit; already they're pressuring Obama to give her the vice presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Rah-rah deleted**

Don't turn this into a forum. No support messages, no flags, no patriotic flags, no rockets!! guddamit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.201.1.109 (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

New section for campaign to have Clinton Dem candidate despite suspension of campaign

I was considering authoring a short section about the movement among some Hillary Clinton supporters to pressure the DNC to make her the nominee despite her suspending her campaign. If I bring in some good media cites and post it here first, do you think it has a chance of being added? Stanistani (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The creation of an entire section is more appropriate for the campaign article rather than this article. Having not seen the quality of sources in regards to this topic, my comment here should not be taken to mean that the section actually should be created in the campaign article, just that it is not appropriate for this article. --Bobblehead 17:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the goal of her supporters is to get her name placed in nomination at the convention, and somehow recognize how many delegates she won, rather than having Obama be nominated by acclamation. I agree with Bobblehead that this belongs in the campaign article; once the convention is over, we might add one sentence here describing what her role was in it. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to note somewhere that the television show "All in the Family" in 1973 predicted that the USA would have a black man as President before it would have a woman as President. (Season 4, Episode 6, "Henry's Farewell"). 99.170.12.120 (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in the All in the Family article, but not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin deleted it from All in the Family article (no explanation offered)--it's like 'let's pretend that 35 years ago nobody could see this coming'99.170.12.120 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as very significant. A prediction like this has a 50% chance of becoming correct. I'm sure one could find some other cultural reference from the 1970s that said the reverse. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we edit??

This is supposed to be Misplaced Pages the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And I can't. Why not?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.64.19 (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Beacuse you don't have an account with WIKIPEDIA. You only have an I.P address, and to keep people from making bad edits they keep people who havn't had an account with them for a few months or so. It's just to help keep out vandals. Make an account if you want to do some editing--  Jrobb525 07:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Four days, not a few months. Tvoz/talk 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see also Misplaced Pages:Autoconfirmed. ffm 14:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, it is all a ruse. I get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.64.19 (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There's only a handful of semi-protected articles like this one. There are over two million articles that you can edit right now, no questions asked. So no, not a ruse. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

When is this super-sensitivity (entitlement) of the HRC Wiki going to end? I would think that most of the vandals have moved on. No? Oxfordden (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's for the admins to decide. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, still a candidate?

Not to upset folks, but isn't Clinton status with the Democratic race, the same as Ron Paul's status in the Republican race? She's suspended her prez campaign (not ended it). Thus she keeps her delegates - Doesn't this mean she's still a candidate for the Dems prez nomination? PS- Yes, I know most sources says she's not a candidate anymore. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well... she suspended her campaign... so it depends on how ridgidly you want to define the term candidate... personally, I think a suspended campaign should count as not being a candidate (I could envision some rare exceptions to this but generally that should be the rule). She has effectively announced that she is no longer running therefore she is no longer a candidate. Otherwise, we could argue that Mike Gravel, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, etc. are still candidates as their names appeared on ballots even after they eneded their campaign. Now if, you want to talk about the definition of the term superdelegate I could really get technical there, that term is so misused it's amazing.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No prob; I just wanted to be sure. PS- I'm still waiting for Donna Brazile to make an endorsement. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference with Ron Paul is that he explicitly has not endorsed McCain, while HRC explicitly did endorse Obama. The suspension status is a technicality due to getting funds to pay off her huge campaign debts. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

millennium project

i propose we take out that she initiated the "millennium project" (see ), unless someone has a source. this may be a dup reference to the wh millennium council, which she chaired. the wikilink goes to a un article that doesn't cite her involvement. comments welcome Journalist1983 (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The wlink is clearly wrong. The source for the "Millennium Project" is http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43, which is used a number of times in the article. I've removed the wlink and added the cite. Is this the same as the White House Millennium Council? Good question, have looked a bit, nothing conclusive. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

i started the article on the millenium council; it is the same. there is no "millennium project"' the source you cited is just the WH puffy biowriters writing something when they didn't know the formal name.Journalist1983 (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the text to mention Millennium Evenings, which she hosted under the White House Millennium Council and which is what I think the existing text was making reference to. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We can do that, but to be clear under the auspices of the council she did a myriad of interesting things, and this was one of them.Journalist1983 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So are they running mates now?

I couldn't help wondering that after I hard the news this morning, is Hilary Obama's running mate? Or is it too soon to say? Katana Geldar 22:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not. Don't confuse what you see for show with reality. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote totals

Since the end of the campaign, several editors have tried to add to the lead section some text to the effect that Hillary got the most popular votes in the nomination campaign. While the popular vote totals should be dealt with, the matter gets complicated and should not be in the lead. Instead, I have added to the presidential campaign section this:

Clinton and Obama each received over 17 million votes during the nomination process, with both breaking the previous record.

with the first footnote citing this RealClearPolitics page, which has been the standard reference for discussing the popular vote throughout the campaign. I then added this footnote text:

The popular vote count for a nomination process is unofficial, and meaningless in determining the nominee. It is difficult to come up with precise totals due to some caucus states not reporting popular vote totals and thus having to be estimated. It is further difficult to compare Clinton and Obama's totals, due to only her name having been on the ballot in the Michigan primary.

So in other words, yes, technically more people voted for Hillary in the nomination contest than anyone in history. But no, in contests where they both appeared on the ballot, Hillary did not get more popular votes than Obama. You can play further experiements with these numbers: What if you allocate the "Uncommitted"'s from Michigan to Obama? What if you cut the Michigan and Florida numbers in half, since the delegates were cut in half? What if ... etc. It should be obvious that this is too murky and complicated and potentially misleading an area to try to deal with in the lead section, and that what I have done in the campaign section, or something like it, is the way to go. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

further reading 2008 Hillary book

See new 2008 book on Sen Hillary Clinton, esp about family and ancestors Clinton In This Sign + —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.165.95 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks self-published and not a WP:RS to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Another FA run?

The McCain article's recent promotion to FA made me wonder if this article should be sent through again? In checking the last two FACs for this article the only real complaint was about stability concerns because she was still a candidate for President. Since HRC is no longer a presidential hopeful those concerns seem to be resolved now. A check of the diff between the article after the last FAC and its current state doesn't seem to indicate there having been any major changes to the article, so with the stability concerns removed, I don't see why this article couldn't be FA. --Bobblehead 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully intend to, but after Obama picks someone (else) for veep, lest people hold out that possibility for future instability. (It's amazing that there were over a dozen opposes to her FAC back in April/May, when she had at best a 20% chance of gaining the nomination, while McCain's FAC just went through with no opposes at all, when he has a 100% chance of gaining the nomination ... go figure.) I also want to revise the presidential campaign section somewhat, as there have been some good accounts and postmortems written that will allow us a bit more of an analytical, less blow-by-blow description than what was written as it was happening. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll hold off the hordes.;) But yes.. I was quite surprised that McCain got FA'd with all the flak this one got for 1(e). Looks like someone finally beat it into the heads of the FA reviewers that just because a section might be modified at a future date it doesn't mean you flag the entire article as unstable. --Bobblehead 23:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's one explanation. Tvoz/talk 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation re Tuzla

I believe that the sentence in the article about the Bosnia sniper (below) is overly presumptuous in claiming that this small campaign event undermined both Sen. Clinton's entire "credibility" and "foreign policy expertise"... honestly the woman's been in public service for over 35 years. I recommend reading the actual source itself--the overly critical language is misleading, will come off to some as sexist.

"... her campaign statements about having been under hostile fire from snipers during a 1996 visit to U.S. troops at Tuzla Air Base in Bosnia-Herzegovina were not true attracted considerable media attention, and the contradiction risked undermining both her credibility and her claims of foreign policy expertise as First Lady." Random12345678910 05:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's quote the whole thing: "Clinton's admission in late March—following the airing of video—that her campaign statements about having been under hostile fire from snipers during a 1996 visit to U.S. troops at Tuzla Air Base in Bosnia-Herzegovina were not true attracted considerable media attention, and the contradiction risked undermining both her credibility and her claims of foreign policy expertise as First Lady." Footnote 282 confirms her admission that her campaign statements about Tuzla had been inaccurate, and confirms that in fact this had happened multiple times. Footnote 283 confirms the media attention ("Amid a slew of mocking news reports and replays of the contradictory footage") and the potential damage ("The former First Lady was attacked by Barack Obama for exaggerating her role in foreign policy-making during her husband’s presidency, which she has frequently asserted makes her more qualified to lead than her Democratic rival" and “'When you make a false claim that’s in your prepared remarks, it’s not misspeaking, it’s misleading'” and "the issue threatened to overshadow Mrs Clinton’s attempt to bring voters’ attention back to the faltering economy").

Now, we don't state, as you claim, that this "undermined" her, we say that it "risked undermining" her. Which it surely did. The Tuzla episode happened in the long seven-week gap between primaries, and it would be useful to research whether political analysts have discovered whether the episode actually did hurt her during the rest of the campaign. Certainly she won the Pennsylvania primary pretty convincingly, but did for example the lingering effects of this damage her during the Indiana/North Carolina primaries, which were what effectively ended her last chances of winning? If analysis shows that in the end the episode made no difference, then the planned rewrite of this section (see above) might omit it, or relegate it to a footnote.

In any case, I don't see how you can say inclusion of this episode is "sexist". Many a male politico's campaign has been sunk or damaged by the same kind of exaggeration of past record. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look more closely at the role of the sniper event and see what actual significance it has with her campaign, but that isn't as significant as the fact that going into speculation about how it undermined her credibility is presumptuous. You're claim that this is what any male politico goes through intrigued me, so I've been comparing this article to other male politicians', and to be honest with you it seems pretty clear to me that this article is actually disproportionately negative compared to all the male politician pages I've seen and many don't mention near as many or any of the little negative campaign events as are in this one. For instance, the only thing in Obama's article is a small blurb on the Jeremiah Wright controversy and has no mention at all of his "bitter" comment about people "clinging to their guns", failure to wear the American flag pin on his lapel, or the small amount of his income he donated to charity.. all of which received much more than national press and attention (especially the bitter comment.. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/14/politics/fromtheroad/entry4013565.shtml). My charge of sexism is not as random as you might think (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13women.html?hp); I'd recommend comparing the articles on the male politicos you're talking about to Ms. Clinton's and see if the levels of negative are comparable--that's what the Times article is about.. undue negative scrutiny of Senator Clinton not because she's running for a high office or doesn't have tough skin but because she is a woman.

Random12345678910 17:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize that we have female editors at WP as well? Are all or most of them sexists besides you or are they just holding back? Anyway. To call editors on this article sexists is in my mind silly and has no ground. If you'd have bias concerns against Clinton I could accept it as an opinion with some base to it.

So here you got my opinion on it. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said anybody was sexist, I said it could come off as sexist, which is true for lots of the coverage of Sen. Clinton's campaign not just in Misplaced Pages. I also don't think being a woman makes you more or less sexist than anybody else. I'm not an expert on Misplaced Pages and don't know how many editors you have on this one article, but I am a regular person, and I read this article and saw more negative than in any of the other male candidates' articles, and found the line about the sniper to be presumptuous.

Random12345678910 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama's a bad article to compare to, because it's been in extensive edit warfare for much of the past few months. Try comparing to Rudy Giuliani, if you want to see an article about a male politico with lots of negativity. That said, all these comparisons are pretty much fruitless. Each article is worked on by different sets of editors, have different styles, different judgments about what to leave in and what to leave out, and so forth. In other words, if you're looking for high levels of editorial consistency, Misplaced Pages is the wrong place! And if you have other specific objections to this Hillary article besides the Tuzla episode, please bring them forward. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity

I just had to edit a bunch of bogus about the selection of Biden "over Clinton" being "generally considered" to be "an insult to the 18 million people who voted for her" out of the article. Come on, people, maybe you're upset or maybe you're just looking to start a fight, but go find a blog for that. This is Misplaced Pages, not an editorial, not a blog, and certainly not a place for weasel words. --Kudzu1 (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the whole vice-presidential pick addition to the campaign article for now. It was too long and detailed for the main article (at what time Obama made the pick is irrelevant), had inadequately formatted citations, and most importantly rested on false assumptions. The "dream team" stuff was mostly the press talking, Obama never seriously considered HRC for veep, nor should he have: when you win you get to decide, you're under no obligation to pick the second-place finisher, and in this case the second-place finisher came with way too much baggage (Bill, for starters). At some point I'll briefly add the veep selection when we describe HRC's role at the convention after that happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

First First Lady With Professional Career?

I doubt the accuracy of the statement that Hillary was the 1st First Lady with a Professional Career. Nancy Reagan was an actress, Betty Ford was a dancer, Pat Nixon was an economist and a teacher, and Lady Bird Johnson was a businesswoman and journalist. There are probably other examples, too. I would like to remove this statement about Hillary. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopm (talk • contribs) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read it carefully enough. It says "She was the first First Lady ... to have her own professional career up to the time of entering the White House." That last part is the key. The women you mention had all stopped those careers well before entering the White House as First Ladies. The difference is significant, as Hillary was part of the generation of women where maintaining a professional career coincided with getting married and having children. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could clarify to say, "She was the first First Lady ... to maintain her own professional career even during her husband's presidential campaign."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really capture it. I think Pat Nixon, Nancy Reagan, Betty Ford and the others had all stopped working for at least 15 or 20 years before they became First Ladies. As did Laura Bush, for that matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Graduate Studies

On Pat Nixon's page, it says that she is the 1st first lady to hold a graduate degree. On Hillary CLinton's page, it says that she is the 1st first lady to hold a graduate degree. Why the inconsistency? Which one is it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopm (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This article says of Hillary, "She was the first First Lady to hold a post-graduate degree." Pat Nixon's article refers to graduate degree (meaning B.A. or equivalent), and Hillary is something after that (law degree). So they aren't in direct conflict, although the editors of both articles are trying to better understand this question. In particular, Pat Nixon got a certificate that was allegedly the equivalent of a masters. And is it really true that no one before her even got a bachelors? Anyway, this is on our investigation queues. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The last is not true, as Jackie O and Lady Bird both had B.A.'s, for example. Discussion will continue at Talk:Pat_Nixon#Graduate_Studies, since it's there that the question lies. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone needs to correct the vandalism in the first line of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.101.64 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Went 4 1/2 hours before getting reverted. That's what happens when you lose an election, you're yesterday's news and no one cares if your WP page gets trashed either. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Public service, executive, and legal career of Hillary Rodham Clinton"

Perhaps a new page should be created about Clinton's years as a lawyer, activist, executive, etcetera? And should that section really be called "Family, law career, and First Lady of Arkansas"? It seems to me a seperate section for family is appropriate and maybe it should be called something like "Public servcie and legal career". In researching her career one finds her independent career is much more important in her story in that period of time than her post as FLOA. Moderate2008 (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This must be a wind-up. Have you not even read the article? Probably not. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

HRC's personal and professional career were closely interwined all during this time, which is why we include it all in one chronologically oriented narrative. Our article covers in detail all of the different roles that HRC played during 1974-1992. But many of these did come about, directly or indirectly, as a consequence of the visibility and power that accrued from her being the wife of the governor. And the rest came about as the result of her legal abilities and achievements, which were considerable. So I believe the section is correctly named. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the article, and I have read much on Clinton also. I still doubt the inclusion of FL of Ark. in the title. Wouldn't "Family, public service, and legal career" would work just as well?Moderate2008 (talk)

I don't think so. "Public service" is broad and vague, "First Lady of Arkansas" is a well-recognized position. And it's important to keep "Marriage" in the section title, since the decision did not come easily to her, and it would have major positive and negative consequences for the rest of her life. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

new photo

Nice addition, Bbsrock, of picture from today of Hillary speaking for Obama. Clearly makes an important point. Thanks! Tvoz/talk 07:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Voter Fraud found by 13 year old Hillary Rodham?

Come on, first of all by all historical accounts if there was any voter fraud it was from the Daley Democratic machine after he held the voting results until the following morning with an incredible 450k democratic margin. Now I am suppose to believe a 13 year old Hillary Rodham found results to the contrary. Clean this up!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.130.61 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article says: "Raised in a politically conservative household, at age thirteen Rodham helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, where she found evidence of electoral fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon." You and the article are in agreement. You must have thought the article said "by" instead of "against". Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Elector history

Shouldn't there be something about the primaries and convetnion under electoral history? Moderate2008 (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, details like this are usually kept in our "Electoral history of ..." articles (see Category:Electoral history of American politicians for the whole lot). But I discovered that Electoral history of Hillary Rodham Clinton wasn't linked to from the main article at all, for some reason. I've added a "main" xref in the Electoral history section to it, and I've also added it to Template:Hillary Rodham Clinton. So now at least that article is visible. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa

Regarding this revert, according to this source (10th paragraph), Hillary Clinton is a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Hmm. I'd like something a little more definitive; this speaker could have been picking up on some folklore on the Internet that was wrong. I just don't remember reading this in any of her biographies. I'll check the next time I'm in the library. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. MSGJ 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Move

Should this page be moved to Hillary Clinton? Per WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks, Genius101 15:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 9#Requested move. MSGJ 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

See the FAQ pointed to above. This has been discussed several times, and there was another requested move here where it was clearly decided not to. And now that her campaign is over, where she was often using "Hillary Clinton", she's gone back to her Senate career, where she has always most definitely been Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This should be left as is. She is almost always known as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Moderate2008 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Cabinet

She has been mentioned, within the past few days, as a potential:

• United States Secretary of State
• United States Attorney General (which she and Bill considered in 1993 before learning it was illegal)
• United States Secretary of Health and Human Services
• United States Secretary of Education (which she and Bill considered in 1993 before learning it was illegal)

She is also considered a possible future

• Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
• Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (Should Roberts step down, which is unlikely)
• Governor of New York
• Senate Majority Leader
• Democratic National Committee Chair

and even

• Mayor of New York City (most doubtful of everything on this list, I think)

Should a section on her political future, or an equivilant, be added?

Moderate2008 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of these "mentions" don't have much behind them. Per this story: "Mrs. Clinton told Fox News last month that there was “probably zero” chance of her becoming Senate majority leader. Several Senate Democratic aides concur, noting that many of her colleagues supported Mr. Obama for president. Asked about the chances that she would run again for president, she said, “Probably close to zero.” Supreme Court nominee? “Zero,” she said. “I have no interest in doing that.”" And per this story: "Asked whether she would join an Obama administration, Clinton said: "I want to be the best senator I can be from New York."" Given what these stories say, I think the most likely future is either the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee post or taking the point on health care legislation if Kennedy is not up to it. But we don't have to speculate in our article; if something happens, we'll include it then. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Very true. However, people always say they will not take such posts until they were offered. Just like Sarah Palin and

Applied for astronaut training?

Alfred Webre in an episode of his radio show, ExoPolitics Radio, on December 12, 2007 (time: 00:05:45) relays information that Hillary Clinton is believed to have applied for the astronaut training program "very early on in her career, I think while she was still in college", but that she was turned down. If reliable sources can be found to corroborate this, it perhaps warrants mention in the article? __meco (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. What happened was that when she was in middle school in the early 1960s she decided she wanted to become an astronaut and wrote to NASA asking how to prepare for that career. They replied telling her to forget about it, as only men could become astronauts. See ABC News story for one source on this. So no, she never actually applied. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead-too-long tag

User:Meco has applied a lead-is-too-long tag to the article. I respectfully disagree. It's four paragraphs, which is within the 2-to-4-paragraph guideline, and the high end is appropriate for an article of this length and scope. It's important to get all the salient aspects of her life and career into the lead, because we know that many readers never go past that, and because some WP-on-paper or WP-on-CD/DVD proposals intend to just use the lead sections of articles and drop everything else. Finally, this article has been through WP:FAC twice, and the length of the lead has never been raised as an issue as far as I recall. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I just think that a lede which fills up your entire screen will discourage a lot of readers. __meco (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your metric is very dependent upon computing environment. With the notebook computer and Firefox 3 browser I'm using right now, for example, almost all of our major biographical articles "fill up the screen", including Rudy Giuliani, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, Grover Cleveland, Bob Dylan, etc. I don't get discouraged when I read these, I just scroll down. For that matter, I've read Misplaced Pages articles on mobile phone browsers too, where you have to start scrolling right away after a few sentences. And the Misplaced Pages layout isn't really optimized towards cramming as much information into the first screen as possible, otherwise the housekeeping menus and tabs wouldn't be at the top, much less the begathon banner of the last few days. Finally, on a substantive note, please realize that what's in the lead now has been worked out over a period of years as part of finding a neutral balance of what to include there. Take away her First Lady legislative initiatives that succeeded, for example, and someone will want to take away the health care initiative that failed. Take away her being on the board of Wal-Mart and someone will say we're whitewashing her time as part of one of America's most controversial corporations. Take away the "more primaries and delegates than any" description and someone will say we're minimizing her accomplishments during the 2008 campaign. And so on. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems analogous to the phenomenon known as instruction creep, and the fact that the introduction has steadily been built over a long period does not stave off this insiduous process, quite the contrary in many cases. I'm not asserting that compacting this section will be easily accomplished, I'm merely stating that I experienced it as a put-off. My statement about it filling up my whole screen is obviously highly relative and should not be the focus here. It was only used to illustrate my point and perhaps badly chosen. __meco (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. We'll see what others say. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe it needs to be left as is. She has had an unbelieveably long career and has done much. Some would say the intro does not even really do her pre-White House years justice and does not have much on her First Ladyship or Senate tenure either. She has had a long career in politics, law, business, charity, and public service that has spanned three decades. This seems an appropriate lead to an article deticated to a career that long. It should be left as is. Especially if she gets some other job in the future. Moderate2008 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the absolute minimum to me. And the argument that it will discourage readers is very feeble. I feel the tag can be removed.--PremKudva 11:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has supported the tagger's position on this, and since the length of the lead was not objected to in the past or in FAC, I've removed the tag. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to that considering the consensus. __meco (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Madam Secretary?

Andrea Mitchell reported a leak today from the Obama transition team about Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. It is being described as the biggest news of the transition thus far and the biggest leak from the Obama camp in a long time/ever. This definetly merits a mention, whether or not she gets it. Reports say Obama is none too pleased with Kerry and Richardson, and reports state she has moved to the top of the list.

Moderate2008 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in case

<speculative infobox removed -- if it happens we'll change it>

This is really simple. If Obama makes a public announcement that HRC is his Sec of State nominee, we'll state it in the article lead. If she's confirmed, we'll add it to the infobox. But this will happen when the Obama transition team makes a formal announcement. It won't happen because The Guardian reports it. If you don't recall from the two years of presidential campaigning, many times newspapers gets things like this wrong. Accuracy is more important than being first on the block for us. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is, however, accurate to state that she is on the short list. We know she was offered. We know she is considering it. Moderate2008 (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't know that it has been offered. We just know that there have been serious discussions between Obama and HRC about the possibility. There are many complications -- does Obama really want to do it, does HRC really want the job, can the Bill conflict-of-interest issues be resolved, will Obama supporters be unhappy, can she get confirmed, etc. We will wait and see what happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First Lady is not an Office

How is the first lady a office...unless it is appointted by the president...lol

Actually, it was regarded as an honorary, yet official, postion within the White House for many years - all other First Ladies have such infoboxes and it is considered an "office", as in the "The Office of the First Lady" (which, I doubt, refer to an election). But in 1994, under Hillary Rodham Clinton, a U.S. federal court case ruled that the First Lady is an official of the government. The case came about because some said that while the Clinton administration said only "government officials" could participate in the 1993 and 1994 health care negotiations led by the First Lady, Hillary was joining - she was not a gov't official they said, and the meetings should be open to everyone if she could participate. So the case went to court, and majority ruled that the First Lady is in fact an official of the government. So, thanks to Hillary, there was, for the first time, a legal verdict on the First Ladyship as a government office - and it was that, yes, it is. Moderate2008 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this issue before several times, look back through the Talk archives. The "office" is really a side-effect of using the infobox template we do. But all the First Lady articles are like this, including ones that are FA like Nancy Reagan and Pat Nixon. So it's not worth worrying about. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Secretary of State

Unless you have a source beyond the Guardian article or an article talking about the Guardian article, please don't say Hillary is the next Secretary of State!

Several of us read the Guardian article here and began making edits about Hillary officially accepting Obama's nomination to Secretary of State. The Magnificent Clean-keeper removed these edits, likely because he didn't feel the Guardian article was enough proof. Well, fair enough - if the news is true, other news sources should be covering it. I just wanted to mention that here so others would know to not go crazy editing for Secretary of state until we know more. - FlyingToaster 06:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• GA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Arkansas articles
• Unknown-importance Arkansas articles
• WikiProject Arkansas articles
• GA-Class Chicago articles
• Mid-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class New York (state) articles
• Unknown-importance New York (state) articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press