Talk:Hillary Clinton: Difference between revisions
imported>Kjetil Ree ({{subpages}}) |
imported>Pat Palmer (request to remove "analysis" of current election) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::It's "Most" because that's the one her critics emphasize time and again, far more than any other vote.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 07:16, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | ::It's "Most" because that's the one her critics emphasize time and again, far more than any other vote.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 07:16, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | ||
:::Actually, her base emphasizes it. Her critics generally support this vote. Perhaps that does make it the "most" controversial, but that's still a large enough claim to require a reference. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 09:11, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | :::Actually, her base emphasizes it. Her critics generally support this vote. Perhaps that does make it the "most" controversial, but that's still a large enough claim to require a reference. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 09:11, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | ||
==election status not appropriate?== | |||
I would like to remove all the status information about the current election, since we are not a news organization. Reports of attacks and rhetoric during the current campaign seem particularly unhelpful to me in this context. Can this article stick mainly to a reporting of facts about her life, deliberately omitting activities ongoing during this campaign? Even if we cite references for those, we are essentially getting into the business or providing analysis of ongoing, active events--not a role I see as appropriate for the Citizendium. If no one objects, I will remove large portions of the opening pertaining to who attached whom for what during the current election.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 15:09, 16 January 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 16:09, 16 January 2008
"Most" Controversial?
Senator Clinton has made a good many controversial votes. I'm not sure how one can be qualified as the "most" controversial. Will Nesbitt 08:08, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
- It's "Most" because that's the one her critics emphasize time and again, far more than any other vote.Richard Jensen 07:16, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
- Actually, her base emphasizes it. Her critics generally support this vote. Perhaps that does make it the "most" controversial, but that's still a large enough claim to require a reference. Will Nesbitt 09:11, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
- It's "Most" because that's the one her critics emphasize time and again, far more than any other vote.Richard Jensen 07:16, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
election status not appropriate?
I would like to remove all the status information about the current election, since we are not a news organization. Reports of attacks and rhetoric during the current campaign seem particularly unhelpful to me in this context. Can this article stick mainly to a reporting of facts about her life, deliberately omitting activities ongoing during this campaign? Even if we cite references for those, we are essentially getting into the business or providing analysis of ongoing, active events--not a role I see as appropriate for the Citizendium. If no one objects, I will remove large portions of the opening pertaining to who attached whom for what during the current election.Pat Palmer 15:09, 16 January 2008 (CST)
- Article with Definition
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- History Developing Articles
- History Nonstub Articles
- History Internal Articles
- Politics Developing Articles
- Politics Nonstub Articles
- Politics Internal Articles
- Topic Informant Developing Articles
- Topic Informant Nonstub Articles
- Topic Informant Internal Articles
- History tag
- American politics since 1945 tag