Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:09, 11 August 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chelsea Clinton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chelsea Clinton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. University of Oxford This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography 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

Chelsea Clinton

Chelsea Clinton's Engagement Was Announced On November 22,2009,Please Put That Date In Her Biography.67.162.29.162 (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Father-in-law

I put in a NY Times reference to the subject's (at this point future) father-in-law having been convicted of fraud and doing federal time.

It was deleted as "tangential" ... but I'm putting it back.

If the subject's father-in-law's history as a congressman is relevant, then so is his ironic history as a convicted fraudster. It's only fair to take the bad with the good.

It's certainly historically significant that the president and Secy of State's daughter is marrying the son of a man who served time in prison for fraud.

It's at least as relevant to the topic as the mention of who will be the subject's husband's uncle (already mentioned in the same sentence).

BTW... I tried to say it in as unbiased a way as possible.

John2510 (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this does not belong here - it is amply covered in the bluelinked article about his father. This is a bio of her life, not his. (And I also removed reference to his uncle whic is also not appropriate here.)Tvoz/talk 05:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I put it back. Why is it relevant who her father-in-law is? If it's relevant that he was a congressman, then it's relevant that he's a felon. The deletion of this legitimaate reference is bordering on vandalism. John2510 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the article; it's just an attempt at sleaze-by-association grubbery. Jeb Bush's wife getting caught lying to avoid customs duties, while he was governor, isn't mentioned in his article, for example, and this is far less relevant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason the current page describes both her new in-laws as former "Democrat" congressmen? The proper term is "Democratic"; "Democrat" as an adjective is used primarily by partisan Republicans as a perjorative.162.96.105.84 (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

yes on "Democratic", no on felon/ Hullabaloo is right - this is not acceptable for her bio. Tvoz/talk 16:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"... it's just an attempt at sleaze-by-association grubbery." No more than that he's a former congressman is an attempt at "credential-by-association" grubbery. A brief mention of her in-laws historical significance is appropriate. Somebody shortened my entry to "convicted fraudster." That seems like an appropriate change. If we're going to drop the convict reference, we ought to drop any reference to her father-in-law's "credentials" at all and just mention his name with a link. I think both are equally relevant and should remain. I don't know anything about the Bush page referenced. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, if she was convicted and did federal time... I'm guessing it would have made the page. 173.79.190.105 (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This has reached the point of vandalism of a valid entry about the father-in-law's signficiant history. Do we want to agree to remove any reference to the in-law's credentials... and just link to the names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop accusing editors of vandalism when this is obviously not that - valid arguments are presented here on the talk page about why this information does not belong in Chelsea Clinton's biography. Feel free to discuss, but please cool it with the accusations. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 17:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No one has given any reason why the positive reference belongs but the negative (and more ironic) one does not. I've posted this dispute on the living person's bio discussions page for broader discussion. John2510 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The reasons are WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Acronyms aren't reasons... and those pages simply don't support the biased referencing. John2510 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're not interested in reviewing those articles, or asking questions about them, then don't expect your viewpoint to be considered in our consensus-making. --Ronz (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how "Democratic congressman" is a necessarily positive reference - in many circles I assure you it is not. In fact it is merely an identifier, the reason for Edward Mezvinsky's own separate biography which goes into detail about all of his life, with its twists and turns. Even there his primary identification is as a former Congressman - that is the way he should be identified here as well. Tvoz/talk 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that "former Congressman" looks fine, in the scope of this bio. --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just add "both former members of Congress" after the two parents' names? I see no need to get into which states they represented in this bio. Also "He attended..." is ambiguous after the mention of the father. I would suggest "Marc attended..." instead.--agr (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Vegan/Vegetarian

The article mentions that Clinton is a vegetarian and has her listed under that category, but this article says she's been a vegan since she was a teenager. I've seen mentions of this elsewhere; if reported in a few other reliable sources she should probably be moved to the "American vegans" category. --Gloriamarie (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Validation: I can validate much of the public perception of Chelsea Clinton as a vegetarian and the 'for animals' part. I'd suggest that childhood friends could be interviewed to address this question with greater authenticity than a collection of press clippings, since Chelsea's childhood was so heavily protected by her parents. She did attend a Quaker academy (the Sidwell Friends School), and the White House ordered Boca Burgers throughout the Clinton years in the Presidency, and Mrs. Clinton had called in Dr. Dean Ornish and vegan chef Ron Pickarski to consult on White House food early in the first Clinton years. MaynardClark (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we (or someone) add a tag "American vegans"? MaynardClark (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of "First Daughters" have been vegetarian: Amy Carter Patti Reagan-Davis Chelsea Clinton

and Walter Mondale's daughter was (reportedly) a weight-lifter, I recall seeing on a muscle magazine once. MaynardClark (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Name change?

Has she changed her name as a result of her marriage? Alphaboi867 (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

When a reliable source reports this, it will no doubt appear in our article. Not our job to speculate. Tvoz/talk 07:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree and further add that reliable sources are currently saying that this is yet unknown. My76Strat 07:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, someone who has automatic editing privileges has changed the name and listed the change as "minor". Can anything be done about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it not the standard custom in the USA for a wife to take her husbands family name? Why would we assume that she would not? Even if she was one of the "odd balls" to not do so, she would still be refered to as Mrs. her husband's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.228.111 (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not as common as it once was--women often choose to keep their birth surname--and to the extent that adopting the husband's surname is is a common practice, there is no need to mention it in this article unless we have reliable sources that say what choice has been made by Ms. Clinton.--agr (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not remotely common enough to presume that she would change her name, and anyone who referred to Chelsea Clinton as Chelsea Mezvinsky would be an idiot. Propaniac (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If she doesn't take her husband's name, many may assume they are living together or that Misplaced Pages is slow to upgrade articles. Perhaps the first sentence should read Chelsea Victoria Clinton (Mezvinsky) or Chelsea Victoria (Clinton) Mezvinsky. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We wait for reliable sources, we do not lead the world to show the "right way". I think that people likely to know about Chelsea Clinton are a little more sophisticated these days, and don't need us to point out that a marriage may involve a name change; they would also recognize the issue as trivia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If it all helps, the relevant page naming guideline is at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people), specifically WP:NCP#Multiple and changed surnames and WP:NCP#Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens. The point is that Misplaced Pages favors the most common name used in reliable sources – not the current married name or the current legal name. If most reliable sources still use "Chelsea Clinton", then that should be the article's name.

However, the first sentence of the article is treated totally different, and is outlined on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names. There, we can still use the most current legal or married name, like "Chelsea Victoria (Clinton) Mezvinsky", "Chelsea Mezvinsky (née Clinton)", "Chelsea Mezvinsky, better known by her birth name Chelsea Clinton" or a variation thereof. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand why she would want to keep her father's name. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand why you're so eager to assign her her father-in-law's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

← It is utterly irrelevant whether anyone here thinks she should or should not change her name - the only thing that matters is whether reliable sources report that she has or has not done so. This talk page is not for discussing personal opinions about the subject of the biography (or her father), it is to discuss improvements to the article. At present, no one has come forward with any reliable source saying she is taking her husband's name, and since we are not in the 19th century we do not automatically assume that she changed her name. If it is reliably reported that she has, we'll change it. If it is not so reported, we don't change it here. And in a related point, we don't add her husband's name to the lead sentence of the article because that is not where her notability derives from. It is wholly out of place as the lead, so please stop putting it there. Tvoz/talk 06:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• If have no wiki reliable statement that she has changed her name then we do not change it in the article, easy peasy. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have updated her last name, per stating the obivous - she's married and as such her last name would change. (Yes I know, it could be her last name - her husband's last name or just her husbands last name ) either way, her last name is no longer "Clinton". To change her last name back to Clinton would be incorrect. Kind of a catch-22, it's not Clinton, so we can't her that or it's technically BLP, we don't know how she's going to state her married name, so we can't just have a married last name, so I updated to include both her madien last name and husband's last name. That way, we have references for "Clinton" and at the same time acknowledge that it's no longer her last name (again, stating the obvious). KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand American things, changing one's name is not something that is necessarily done with marriage. It is merely a custom that some people follow. How do you know her name is no longer Clinton? -- zzuuzz 16:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Chelsea Clinton, redux --
Tvoz, I understand your desire to keep Chelsea's entry in compliance with Wikipeda (and by extension, as factual as it can be ) calling her "Chelsea Clinton" is not accurate anymore. She's married, and per common knowledge, she's got a new last name now. No, we don't know if it's just her husband's last name or if it's her madien last name - her husband's last name, but her last name has changed, no citation is needed for it, it's common knowledge just like it's common knowledge that she's a female. We can't call her "Clinton" anymore, it would technically violate BLP as it's no longer accurate, but neither is a reference available for her official married last name, but both last names could be included that way, we have a reference for her maiden name and acknowledge the RS that show she was married by using her husbands last name (again, per common knowledge). I did update her page to reflect this. Think about blp before you change it again. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kosh, I could not disagree with you more. First we don't edit by "common knowledge" regarding things like peoples' names - we edit by sources. And in fact it is not common knowledge that when a woman marries her name automatically changes. In fact, in New York State where she - and I, 34 years ago - was married, the law is that one's name is what one uses - if you marry and start using your husband's name, consistently, it is your name, but you have to go through steps to have your legal documents changed to that new name. If you marry and do not change your driver's license, passport, etc., and if you consistently continue to use your birth name (please, spare me the idiotic word "maiden" when we're talking about a 30 year old woman), that is your name. You do not have to file any papers to retain your name - it is your name. You do not have to have it legally changed "back" - you just keep using your name, just like the man does. Heavens. Even the IRS understands this correctly. We simply do not know what Chelsea Clinton has decided about her name - we could guess that as her mother before her until Arkansas politics intervened, she is a modern woman who will keep her name, but we're also not in the business of guessing. So I vehemently oppose making this change here until we see in reliable sources that she has chosen to take her husband's name, or a version of it or something else entirely. You do not know if she is now calling herself Chelsea Clinton, Chelsea Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton-Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky, or Chelsea Smith. So you are being presumptuous, at present, in making the change - and, I might add, a bit offensive, although you probably didn't intend that.

Secondly, invoking BLP is ridiculous. Do you actually understand what BLP policy is about? Do you actually think that it is defamatory to leave a woman's name as her original name until we hear otherwise? In some circles it might be considered defamatory to assume that she changed her name - but I am not saying that either. I am saying that with full knowledge and understanding of BLP policy, this has nothing at all to do with it, and I reject the argument. So, with all respect, her name reinstated as her name is correct. I will be glad to change it if and when we know that she has changed it - she decides her name, not you, not me, not Misplaced Pages.

Thanks for leaving me a note, however, and I will be happy to discuss this with you and anyone else - I'll copy this to the article talk page where it will get a wider audience. Tvoz/talk 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

God, where do you people come from who think that all women even in the year 2010 automatically change their names when they get married? Certainly it's not the same place as Ms. Clinton. Propaniac (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Current employment  ??

Avenue Capital Group indicates Chelsea has moved on to further study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.7.108 (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think the article should remain "as is" until a reliable source is cited? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Improving the Article: Trivia

Can we cut some of the trivia in this article (she loved ping pong as a kid) and tighten the whole thing up to make it an encyclopedia article? I know there's not a lot of interesting, encyclopedic material to publish about Chelsea (she's young and has yet to make her mark in the world) but does the article have to be unencyclopedically "stretched" with trivia as meatloaf is with cracker crumbs and oatmeal? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Gluten Allergy

I cannot understand why Chelsea's gluten allergy warrants mention here. Many people have allergies. Chelsea's is nothing extraordinary - unless she's "the face" of gluten allergies in America, or her allergy is the subject of a ground breaking study, or it mysteriously immobilizes her for weeks at a time, or it's noteworthy for some eye-popping reason. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think people are grasping for any known fact on a young celebrity who has maintained a very private personal life, and whose ultimate notoriety remains to be seen. She's the daughter of a president and seems like a nice, bright kid... but writing a bio without grasping for straws is a challenge. John2510 (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

not notable dated content

I don't support the addition in this edit by Suzanne2009NYC, I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that it is too much un-encyclopedic discussion of rumor/speculation, long after the factual outcome has been established, and it appears to me to be excessive bla bla with no long term notability or informative educational value. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I sent the matter to ANI. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There may be a kernel or two of infomation in the addition that might still be relevant (e.g., that her father also attended Oxford, but in contrast on a Rhodes Scholarship - maybe), but overall I'd have to agree with HW and Off2Riorob that the level of detail about long ago speculation that didn't come to pass - and as far as I recall and have seen did not have any real impact on her life - is excessive. Tvoz/talk 17:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think much of the recent material added to the Oxford section is over the top and out of proportion to the rest of the article in both length and level of detail and insignificance to her life story. That she wore a Versace pantsuit to a couture show? The characterization that she was "adjusting poorly" to life in Britain, which the provided quote does not particularly speak to? This was a couple of years of her life, yet has been given an awful lot of weight. The "expand" tag is up there, so maybe Susanne is planning to expand the other sections accordingly, but right now I am not comfortable at all with the way this is written. I have to add, also, that much of the recent editing seems to be tinged with a sarcastic attitude toward her, with the choice of words and what appears to be an insistence on including anything negative that is out there, out of proportion in my opinion, perhaps in an attempt to provide balance - but i think that;s not really what we mean by balance and undue weight. We are supposed to edit with a neutral point of view - but that doesn't mean we add one negative comment for every positive one, or anything like that. What do other editors think about this section? Tvoz/talk 22:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found at least one other comment a bit odd; the same editor returned a statement about the price of Mezvinsky's apartment a few years back as showing the couple would have an "opulent lifestyle" -- showing at best, I think, a lack of familiarity with the outlandishness of Lower Manhattan real estate prices. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Engagement and marriage

I'm thinking of removing the banner. The section appears as complete as it needs to be. Any objections to the removal? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How about paring this almost embarrassingly excessive, tabloid-esque section down to a sentence or two? I mean, it's a SINGLE day in her life. Geez. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly needs trimming, the article has recently been excessively bloated with valueless fluff. Off2riorob (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That is much better Jake. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Relationship

This section was created from models in Angelina Jolie and other FA articles. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestive Pic of Chelsea?

Could someone explain why it is absolutely necessary to have two pics of Chelsea doing exactly the same thing within days of each other (speaking publicly on behalf of her mother's campaign) in this article? While the pics are free and fine, two such on the same subject appear aggressively and insistently stupid. The pic in the infobox appears a wee bit suggestive -- mouth, bulbous microphone. Eh, I think we can do without this pic. Any comments? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestive or no, I see no problem using a different image: is more direct and has no props. JNW (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• - http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Chelsea_Clinton_in_2008_cropped.jpg

For the infobox it is very dark. Personally I think both pics are quality and dissimilar in appearance and are free and already long term in the article, so they are stable and free, so to speak and one is good , very good for the infobox and the other is good to represent the campaign. Off2riorob (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's too dark. Her face is brightly lit. It's an excellent picture and far surpassses what is presently in the infobox. May I politely and very respectfully ask why we are all bound to abide by your judgement? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I seem to have walked into what may be an ongoing edit war--no intent to take sides here, just responding to the image question. JNW (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not something I want. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the pic at right. Chelsea appears sweetly virginal, expectant, hopeful, looking forward in the springtime of life to a wonderful future, and resemblances to both parents are obvious. The picture could probably be cropped by an experienced user and reentered. The present infobox pic initially made me think I was looking at a gal from the Emperor's Club VIP triumphantly leaving court or something. I didn't know who it was until I read the caption and even then I said, "No way." Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The quality of the picture and consensus for its use are really the important things. User:DrJunge was very helpful with File:SalvatoreCassano.jpg, which was the infobox picture on Salvatore Cassano when there were no others to be found. (It has since been replaced by an official FDNY picture.) Perhaps DrJunge would be willing and able to help with this picture, or to suggest someone else.  Frank  |  talk  06:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

← "Sweetly virginal"? and the original one was described on my User talk page as "suggestive - wide open mouth and bulbous microphone. Call me old-fashioned, but it actually excites disgust and mirth." I don't know exactly what's going on here with these comments, but these are not the criteria we normally apply to our choice of photos. On the substance of the objection, this article can easily support having two photos of Chelsea speaking for her mother (see, e.g., Caroline Kennedy's 2 very similar shots of her campaigning for Obama) - Chelsea's campaigning is the way the public was (re-)introduced to her as an adult, after years of her being out of the spotlight, and we go into that in a great deal of detail in the article. I personally like the photo we;ve had as the infobox photo , as it has an active appearance and is well-lit, giving a good view of her. I think the one shown above is ok, but no more than ok as it is poorly lit, and her expression is rather deer-in-the-headlights whereas the other one has a more natural expression, an active stance, a genuine smile and is brighter and more appealing. Even with the bulbous microphone. Neither one is a portrait, but my preference for the infobox from those available is definitely this. Tvoz/talk 08:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But a "bulbous microphone" is a phallic symbol and held close to the open mouth is very suggestive. The more I look at the pic, the harder I laugh. It's very suggestive. Anyway, I support using the lovely photo above and tweaking it a bit. The resemblance to Bill and Hillary is more obvious. Additionally, the pic is very "neutral". She's doing nothing other than smiling and having her pic snapped. It's a more appropriate pic for the infobox. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the "darkness" aspect of it, given that she is wearing dark clothes and there's a dark background, is a legitimate complaint. But that can be fixed; have you made attempts to do so? It is understood you prefer this picture; there does not appear at this point to be WP:CONSENSUS to use it. Continuing to express the same opinion isn't likely to change that; finding some way to improve the picture might.  Frank  |  talk  17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And, there may be other candidate photos, such as this one.  Frank  |  talk  17:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank, any idea what "some rights reserved" means as stated on the flickr page? I don't see that it explicitly says it's free use. If it is, I would consider it for the infobox - but at the moment I think still prefer what we've been using. I'm glad to think about it though. Thanks for your help here, Frank, as always.Tvoz/talk 18:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic basically commons compatible. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, of course - those little doohickeys to the left of "some rights reserved" - I never even noticed them. Thanks Rob. (I still prefer the photo we have, but am open to talk about it of course.)Tvoz/talk 20:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't tweak the photo because I have no skills there. And I can't ask someone else to do it because there's the chance that hours of work on the thing will be shot down. I think the "neutral" photo is OK as is and can be entered now. I can't mention this again because I think there's some sort of punishment dealt those who talk about one thing. Anyway, the current pic will give me a giggle every time I access the article and that's not a bad thing. I like the other pic too. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You most certainly can - and should - ask someone else to do it; let others decide if their time and effort are worth spending on a task, or indeed if they think it can be done and if it will actually improve the picture. By not asking, you are saying "I want it this way and no other way." That's not how to build a project. Do you imagine that others (or do you yourself) edit Misplaced Pages only if their (or your) work is the final version and that if it's changed, there's no point in editing because the work was "shot down"? If so, you are in the wrong place. It says so on every page you edit, just below the "Save page" button.  Frank  |  talk  18:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To address the initial comment in this thread, I do not think there is anything wrong with the photo that is currently in the infobox. It does not seem "suggestive" at all. As Dr. Freud might have said if he were here, sometimes a microphone is just a microphone. That issue aside, I think it is a better photo than the one on this page, which is kind of an odd image for the reasons suggested (yuk yuk) by Tvoz. Neutron (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Cropped images

• - http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Chelsea_Clinton_microphone_Philadelphia_2008.JPG

• - http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Chelsea_Clinton_Speaking_2008_Campaign.JPG

I've eliminated much "wasted space" in two of the main page pics, and, as the images are under discussion, I'm asking that these two be considered to replace the "wasted space" images now present. For some curious reason, the image to the left seems to me to minimize the suggestiveness of the original. Much background distraction is elminated in the cropped version - especially a hand that appears to be reaching for Chelsea's backside. I tried both out in the infobox and the campaign section. They actually work much better than what is present at this time. The pic on the right eliminates that horrible shadow on Chelsea's right and much of her dark coat/dress/whatever. Because it does, her face looks brighter. It's a lovely picture and conveys so much more warmth, personality, and beauty than the original does. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a hand reaching for her backside? Please. No one other than you has come forward with any concern that the original picture is "suggestive", and I for one, do not see any need to "fix" the infobox shot. I prefer the original - it's not "wasted space", it's context: we see the Clinton banner, her raised hand, and it is more apparent that it is taken at a campaign appearance than the cropped closeup of her face with the microphone that you've renamed the picture to highlight. Similarly, the crop of the second picture makes it just a headshot, and not particularly interesting, but the original doesn't have much context either, so I'm trying one that shows the Hillary banner and is more illustrative of the article which is what the purpose of these photos is in the first place. This section is not about her warmth and personality, it's about her campaigning. Tvoz/talk 07:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Another Pic Entry

• - http://en.wikipedia.org/File:ChelseaClintoninWisconsin.jpg

Another pic has been entered for the campaign section. This may be the best of all. With her furrowed brow, Chelsea appears more mature, more philosophical. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I was in process of trying it on the page and posting the above explanation. Please don't crop out the context, by the way - that is the point of its inclusion, not her appearance. Tvoz/talk 07:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In light of the above, I'm inserting the picture now as there's no reason to assume there will be objections from anyone else - we would need to wait for consensus if there were objections (as there were for the other pics). If that happens I'll remove and we can discuss, but no reason now as far as I can see. Tvoz/talk 08:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A good picture with some great background! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Insistent Reverts

I'm wondering why you insistently revert my work? The brief edit summaries are not enough to satisfy my curiousity and I seek a more in depth explanation. I left the article once out of frustration only to have you ask me to reconsider and return. I return and you insistently revert, rephrase, delete, and otherwise exercise control over every aspect of the article as (apparently) some sort of self-appointed "Editor-in-Chief". I don't understand and find such behavior disruptive. Please explain. I need to know why we are expected to abide by your judgement on every aspect the article. I wonder if there's a teasing, taunting "ownership" issue going on here? You did say you've worked on the article a long time and I'm wondering if you feel your territory is being invaded. I hate to think that and would like that nightmare laid to rest. Please give me some reassurance that you do not have ownership issues. Only you can help! Please do. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This was also posted on my talk page, and I responded there. I see no reason to say it all again - if other editors want to discuss this further, please do it here on the article talk page. Tvoz/talk 08:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And I see the same paragraph also was posted on AN/I, although without saying who the nefarious editor is (i.e., me) who is being addressed. I was not notified of the AN/I complaint and saw it after it was appropriately marked "resolved", so I didn't respond there either. I think some counseling about how things work on Misplaced Pages may be in order, but I've already tried. Tvoz/talk 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

← On second (actually, third) thought, I am going to post my reply to the above here for the record:

Susanne, I have to tell you I find this comment borderline insulting. "Teasing", "taunting"? Where do you see that? Ask anyone who has edited with me if they'd describe my comments that way. With all respect, what you seem to be saying is that you have the ownership problem. If you'll look again, you'll see that I'm not the only one reverting some of your edits, so you might think about why that is. I asked you to reconsider leaving because, as I said then, I think you are a good writer and you were overreacting to the reverts that three editors made to material you inappropriately posted about on AN/I. I thought we would be able to work together, but honestly at this point I think maybe you were right, that you should move on to something else. I don't own this or any article, and I certainly don't think I'm "editor in chief", which would be pretty delusional on Misplaced Pages. I mentioned that I've been working on this article for several years, and also on numerous other articles related to personalities connected to the past Presidential election including the candidates, family members etc., to indicate that I am not just passing by and reverting changes willy-nilly - I have knowledge of the subject and a sense of how these articles have been shaped and edited for a long time, so I'm not "insistently reverting" your work - in fact I found much of what you have done to be a big improvement to what was a sketchy piece before the recent influx of source material became available. But I also wonder if you have brought a POV to your editing whereby you look for material to insert that puts her in a negative light with an over-reliance on tabloid-ish, celebrity, gossipy sources which are not the neutral reliable sources we want to be using. Balance does not mean for every positive thing said we need to have a negative - it just doesn't work that way. So I don't know what to tell you - this article is not my work and not your work - like all of the encyclopedia it is a collaborative effort which means that everyone's additions are subject to rephrasing, rewriting, reverting, reinstating, and so on. I'm not rephrasing your work, I'm looking at the words that are there and editing them as I think they should be. I try to leave edit summaries to explain why I'm making changes (you could do more of that) and when there's an issue or disagreement that calls out for more discussion I post on talk and try to reach a consensus of the editors who are participating here. (A recent example would be the talk page discussion of her surname.) I'm sorry if this is not a comfortable process for you, but it is the way it is - especially on articles about American politics and its associated characters. (Although I have to say I have been witness to much more bloodletting on articles about The Beatles.) You are more than welcome to edit any article you want to edit, but you need to accept that the words you put on the page may well be gone before you can catch your breath - and it's not a reflection on you or your talents. But discussion on Talk is always an option. Tvoz/talk 07:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Susanne - There are a handful of people who have made guarding their point of view on this article a life's work. I learned quickly that any edit/revert can be justified by Misplaced Pages principles if those principles are contorted sufficiently, or if they may be simply thrown out by name without further explanation. Even if senior editors concur with you, it only takes a few people willing to put the time in to develop what passes for a "consensus" - with no reasoning and carrying its own, unadmitted, POV. John2510 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of these nefarious behaviors, associated with this article, as you've claimed? I'm a little mystified; Chelsea is barely notable in my opinion, and such claims make this article seem like a real battleground, which I don't see at all.  Frank  |  talk  18:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I had my personal experiences with that here and on the BLP discussion page in attempting to reach a neutral POV description of her father-in-law (I do note the WikiNews blurb on the wedding describes him neutrally in the manner I suggested: http://en.wikinews.org/Chelsea_Clinton_marries_Marc_Mezvinsky_in_Rhinebeck,_New_York). I also see it in Susanne's experiences. While most of Susanne's descriptions of Chelsea strike me as glowing to the point of being a little sappy (sorry, Susanne), she's ironically accused of trying to portray her in a negative light, and thus evidencing a negative POV. An editor with whom I disagreed contacted me and suggested I should come to grips with the fact that "Wikipedians... have a left leaning bias." Those are my experiences and observations on the subject. Given, as you say, that Chelsea is barely notable, its scary to contemplate how NPOV could realistically be achieved on articles regarding notable poltical figures. John2510 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I was asking for specific examples of the nefarious behavior you described; do you have any?  Frank  |  talk  21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes... and I provided it. That's all I'm going to do. It's not appropriate for me to argue with you about it here, and won't do it at pointless length. John2510 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying a thing is so does not make it so. You say you provided examples, but you did not; you provided your own interpretation and/or summary of your "experiences and observations". That's not the same as providing actual examples; the only link you provided was not only not on this article, it wasn't even on this project, and in any case, you listed it as a place where you were satisfied. Take the high road if you like ("That's all I'm going to do") but don't imagine you actually answered the request. I'm not being argumentative; I'm asking you to support what amount to gratuitous assertions until and unless you actually show examples of the behavior you are decrying. If you can't (or won't) do that, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.  Frank  |  talk  02:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nor does saying a thing is not so, make it not so. I've learned quickly that a willingness to generate a volume and repetition of words, regardless of merit, dominates in this medium. I won't be baited into attempting to prove this to your satisfaction. You win... such as it is. John2510 (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the accusation that Wikipedians have a left-leaning bias, I say if it is of little consequence whether that's true or not; the encyclopedia itself should strive for NPOV regardless of any real or perceived bias in any (or all) of its editors. Editors with a point of view are expected; it would be truly odd to find folks with no bias. The trick is to not let it pervade articles. If you feel that standard hasn't been reached here, I would ask you (and anyone) to show where that is, propose changes, and work to make it a better article. And it doesn't matter to me what bias you hold; the goal is to improve the encyclopedia.  Frank  |  talk  21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but,at some point... you're just butting your head against the wall. The concept of consensus is great, and probably works pretty well on purely academic matters, but it won't overcome a majority pointed view on political or other especially pointed issues. That will probably always be a limitation of the medium. John2510 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Schuster's Remark

I am puzzled with the inclusion of the following: "Controversy arose when MSNBC’s David Shuster said that Clinton was being "pimped out" by her parents for the campaign. Shuster was later suspended for his remarks."

Is this relevant? Why? And why is Shuster's suspension relevant to this article? While I can live only marginally with the first sentence, I think the second displays a bias and can be deleted. Some may interpret its inclusion here as "agreement" on Misplaced Pages's part with the suspension. Others may see Schuster's suspension as a violation of his "freedom of the Press". I think it best the passage be deleted. It says nothing about Chelsea. Comments. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a major news event in the US. Perhaps it could be phrased better, but yes, I believe it is directly relevant to the section about Chelsea's campaigning, including the (temporary) suspension - we're neither endorsing nor opposing, just reporting. The suspension is relevant, I believe, because it indicates that the hands-off policy that we discuss a lot in the article was not completely over. Whether anyone thinks that's good or not is not relevant, and doesn;t appear in the text. Tvoz/talk 08:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Could the "pimped out" term used here be paraphrased? It's crudely suggestive and may confuse the unhip because "pimp(ed) out" is not found in the average home dictionary. I didn't know what it meant until I asked my dad and then he was a bit red-faced trying to explain. Anyway, our job as editors is to clarify, not confuse. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of your use of the term "sweetly virginal" to describe a modern 20-something woman and you not knowing what "pimped out" means is...unusual. Nevertheless, it's a quote; I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether or not it belongs, but if it's in, paraphrasing doesn't work. The specific term was what caused the controversy.  Frank  |  talk  16:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The incident is detailed in the David Shuster article. Perhaps we could link it? Here we may need say no more than: "In February 2008, MSNBC news anchor David Shuster made a vulgar remark about Chelsea and her parents that resulted in the Clinton campaign demanding an apology and Shuster's two-week suspension from MSNBC." Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There are major problems with that wording: you are drawing a conclusion by the use of "vulgar remark"; it is our job around here to record what happened. What happened was that he said "pimped out", which is common although not necessarily widespread in modern American usage, and is not, in my opinion, widely regarded as "vulgar". (I will certainly agree if you claim that "pimp" is largely associated with vulgarity, but the term "pimped out" is idiomatic and responded to differently.) In addition, the sentence you wrote makes it more about Shuster than about Clinton, which isn't appropriate in an article about Clinton. Finally, it forces the reader to go to another article to find out what was actually said, when just reporting the quote succinctly right here summarizes the matter quite nicely. Again, my opinion is this: if it's going to be mentioned in this article, short and un-dramatic is perfectly appropriate. There's no need to provide WP:EUPHEMISMs; he said what he said, and again - that was what the controversy was about.  Frank  |  talk  17:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the passage should be rephrased because there are many who will not understand "pimped out" and will not find a definition for it in the dictionary. It's a hip word, slang, and will date the article. Five years hence, readers will be even more confused by the term and asking, "Huh?" Our job is to record accurately, but it is also our job to clarify, not confuse. Actually, I'm beginning to like it. The more I read the passage, the harder I laugh. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think a word which is variously reported as having entered the English language somewhere around 400 years ago is going to disappear completely in five years. In addition, though the article is somewhat in dispute, you could read a short description of its usage over the centuries right here on Misplaced Pages, at pimp.  Frank  |  talk  17:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

2008 Convention

I think the Campaign section should/could end with Chelsea's participation in the 2008 Dem Conv. I found some material about her participation but it is sourced principally to People magazine, which is considered not a high quality source for BLPs. I'm wondering if others feel this material could be used here in spite of the source's reputation because only facts are reported - not interpretation or analysis of the facts. Should the material be rejected, may I enlist others to help me locate quality sources on Chelsea's participation? I can't imagine the NY Times, the Washington Post, or other quality sources would neglect to mention Chelsea's appearance. I will continue to look. Even without the People citation, there's enough to create a few sentences for the section.

From "People" (my paraphrase):

On August 26, 2008, the second day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, Chelsea introduced Sen. Clinton as "my hero and my mother" and narrated a video tribute to her. She referenced her mother's childhood dream of becoming an astronaut and observed, "he didn't become an astronaut, but she did reach for the stars, something she always will continue to do." Chelsea remained seated on the podium when her mother took the stage, and repeatedly stood to join the applause. Chelsea stayed in Denver for her father's address the following evening, then returned to her job in New York City.

From "ABC News":

Sen. Clinton described herself at the very top of her address as "a proud mother".

From "NY Daily News" (my paraphrase):

At the August 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, it was thought Sen. Clinton would be introduced by her husband, but it was Hillary's idea to have her daughter introduce her, possibly as a symbolic gesture to her many female supporters. Thomas Defrank, the NY Daily News Washington Bureau Chief, observed, "The 28-year-old Chelsea, once shy and ill at ease in public settings, was one of her mother's most effective surrogates in the bitter primary campaign, making dozens of appearances and winning praise for her poise on the trail."

From the BBC:

Sen. Clinton's husband was in tears as she acknowledged a standing ovation which stretched on for two or three minutes after Chelsea stood on stage and introduced her as "my hero and my mother".

Hillary Clinton was welcomed to the stage by her daughter Chelsea, who said: "I am proud to introduce my hero, my mother."

From "The NY Times"

Introduced by her daughter, Chelsea, who called her "my hero," Mrs. Clinton was met with a lengthy, loud standing ovation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanne2009NYC (talk • contribs) 5:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is some Definitive Ruling to the contrary, I do not see why People Magazine would not be considered a reliable source for a news item such as this. People is not, for example, the National Enquirer. It should be no less capable of quoting people accurately than its sister publications such as Time, which I think all would agree is a reliable source. Obviously we would not be quoting opinion and gossip from People, but this is actual news which is relevant to the article. Neutron (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I also think the section should end with the convention and added two short sentences to that effect last night with WSJ reference which is better than People - I didn't see this section on Talk until just now, sorry. Problem with earlier incarnation in the text, I think, is that it was bloated, in addition to weak reference. Any objections to the new text/refs? Tvoz/talk 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be tweaked a bit. Perhaps the Defrank quote above could be incorporated somewhere in the text of this section. Tho it's opinion, it's a highly qualified opinion. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph ....

"The first time she was asked about her mother's reaction to the Lewinsky scandal at a campaign stop she responded, "I do not think that is any of your business". But as she became a more experienced campaigner she addressed her father's impeachment directly, with comments like "If that's what you want to vote on, that's what you should vote on.""

I think it needs to be clarifed that CC was speaking to a well-meaning, well-intentioned university student here. Previously in the section, she is depicted brushing off a well-meaning little kid and the reader could thus assume she snapped at another little kid here ... or a decorated WWII vet, or a mom whose sons were serving overseas, or whatever. This entire "campaign section" has been trimmed to the point where Chelsea comes off rather poorly indeed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I clarified that it was a college student but am not so sure he was well-meaning, nor was the audience at the time, despite what he claimed afterward. (Donald Segretti comes to mind.) So I don't think we want to characterize him either way - "college student" makes your point. And I think it is worded neutrally. Tvoz/talk 23:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the several negative incidents that present Chelasea and her parents poorly can be removed without damging the section. They are superfluous and present the Clintons as basically arrogant snobs above our fundamental rights (we don't have to answer questions from the American people). Chelsea couldn't answer a little kid's simple question, the Clintons got a journalist suspended because he was exercising freedom of speech and press, and Chelsea rebuffed a university student because she was unprepared. It would be best to eliminate these three incidents as they do nothing to present the Clintons in a positive light whether the incidents are true or not. We can revise this material to the the last trumpet but they will always present the Clintons in a bad light. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph can be cut to no mention of the student:

"The first time a college student asked about her mother's reaction to the Lewinsky scandal at a campaign stop she responded, "I do not think that is any of your business". But as she became a more experienced campaigner she addressed her father's impeachment directly, with comments like "If that's what you want to vote on, that's what you should vote on.""

Let's try:

After one incident in which she dismissed a question about her mother's reaction to the Lewinsky scandal, Chelsea began to address the subject of her father's impeachment with directness and poise.

Stop this. Not two hours ago you objected to leaving off "college student" here - I didn't think it made much difference, but added it. Now you think it shouldn't be there? Enough. This is trolling, plain and simple and you are wasting our time. Tvoz/talk 02:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

position of pictures

Yes, I know that the MOS:IMAGES guideline says it is "often preferable" to have the faces/eyes facing toward the text, and agree with it, but the reason I made the exception and switched the positions of the 2 shots in the HRC campaign section was because that positioning allowed the text to flow better (visually) and the next header was naturally flush left as is best. With the pix positioned this way (Chelsea on the right, convention on the left), the Engagement header falls in the middle and requires the "clr" tag for the header to look best. That's ok with me, although some may not like the extra white space that is also introduced as a result. So I think the best solution is to not follow the suggestion about pix facing inwardly for this one picture, so that the overall page looks best. I do want that header flush left, as Jake also mentioned, so either solution that accomplishes that is ok with me. This is a fairly weak guideline, by the way, so I don't think the photo police will really care if the face looks in or outward.Tvoz/talk 23:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The pic of CC is a rather poor one. In the first place, the she appears haggard. Her hair is a mess and her clothes are drab. Positioning her away from the article only furthers the negative impression of this photo. As you mentioned, the photo was not selected to depict Chelsea as a warm, beautiful person but only to illustrate her activity. There's a lot in this section that creates a negative impression of Chelsea.

We also need to know what was asked when she told someone it was "none of your business." Otherwise the reader may assume she was asked something salacious like, "Did your dad do things with Monica your mom refused to do?" which she wasn't asked and this should be made clear. Nothing should be left to the reader's imagination. "Pimped out" has already been mentioned and with this still fresh in the reader's mind, it's only a stone's throw to such a thought. In the other instance, the reader is left wondering why she couldn't answer a little kid's simple question, and concludes she's cold, rude, and might have better served America by staying home. There's a lot of negativity in the campaign section. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Negativity in Campaign Section

I've removed all that presents Chelsea and the her parents in a negative light and ask thoughts on the following:

Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign

In December 2007, Clinton began campaigning in Iowa in support of her mother's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. She appeared across the country, largely on college campuses; by early April 2008, she had spoken at 100 colleges on behalf of her mother's candidacy.

On the campaign trail, Chelsea answered audience questions but did not give interviews or respond to press questions, Speaking engagements were usually arranged on short notice and promoted locally, sometimes making it clear that only students would be permitted to attend.

On August 26 at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Chelsea called her mother "my hero" and introduced her with a long video tribute. After this appearance she returned to New York City and her private life. Thomas Defrank, the NY Daily News Washington Bureau Chief, observed, "The 28-year-old Chelsea, once shy and ill at ease in public settings, was one of her mother's most effective surrogates in the ... campaign, making dozens of appearances and winning praise for her poise on the trail."

1. Zeleny, Jeff (December 8, 2007). "Chelsea's Iowa Debut". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 August 2010.
2. Marinucci, Carla (January 14, 2008). "Chelsea Clinton Steps into California Spotlight to Rally for Mother". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved December 6, 2009.
3. "Chelsea Clinton to Visit ASU". The Associated Press (via Arkansas Democrat Gazette). January 26, 2008. Retrieved December 6, 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
4. Schultheis, Emily (March 6, 2008). "Chelsea Clinton Visits Campus". The Daily Pennsylvanian. Retrieved March 8, 2008.
5. Kornblut, Anne E. (April 10, 2008). "Chelsea Clinton Finds Her Voice — Daughter Evolves From Quiet Supporter to Self-Assured Campaigner". The Washington Post. p. A01. Retrieved April 10, 2008.
6. "Chelsea Clinton dismisses "Monica" question". Reuters. 25 March 2008. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
7. Harnden, Tony (March 27, 2008). "Chelsea Clinton questioned over father's affair with Monica Lewinsky". Telegraph Media Group Ltd. Retrieved August 7, 2010.
8. Chozick, Amy (27 August 2008). "Clinton Calls for Unity - WSJ.com". WSJ.com. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 10 August 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
9. Template:Cie news

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class University of Oxford articles
• Unknown-importance University of Oxford articles
• B-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
• Automatically assessed University of Oxford articles
• WikiProject University of Oxford articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles