Talk:First Lady of the United States/Archive 1

I added list of First Ladies from whitehouse.gov, editing out maiden names in hopes of hitting existing Wikipedia articles. However, I may have botched this, and so review would be very much appreciated. For example, in my first pass, I edited down Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. Doh! (as of 7/7/02, no "Hillary Clinton" article exists) -- RobLa July 7, 2002

The question of male First Ladies has already come up in Britain, when the Prime Minister was Margaret Thatcher and the sovereign was, and still is, the Queen. Then there's Haiti, which had a First Lady of the Revolution (Papa Doc's wife, IIRR) and a First Lady of the Republic (Baby Doc's wife). This is discussed in one of Douglas Hofstadter's books. -phma


 * When Ireland has male presidents (we haven't had one for 13 years!) the wife of the President is automatically regarded and described as First Lady. When Mary Robinson became president in 1990, it was suggested that her husband, Nick, should be called First Man but he dismissed the idea. ÉÍREman 21:43 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

"Dolley Madison" is the correct spelling. Ref. http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/dm4.html. Hephaestos 01:19 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)

The term First Lady is used worldwide for the wives of presidents. This article is exclusively about US first ladies so I have renamed the article First Lady of the United States. STÓD/ÉÍRE 18:52 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton may have "acted" as First Lady (i.e., been a hostess at the White House) but to the extent that the term has any actual meaning, she certainly wasn't "First Lady" and doesn't belong on a list of them. Does she appear as such on any list but Wikipedia's? -- Someone else 03:06 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi SE. Excluding Chelsea would be problematic, because then what do we do with all the other "non-wives" who have served as first lady?  Anyhow, I've attached an external link to a list of first ladies which does included Chelsea, and is AFAIK the only list of first ladies on the internet which attempts to be complete. When looking at a list of "first ladies", an interesting checkpoint is to see how they handle (for example) Harriet Lane or Angelica Van Buren.  Both of these women were pretty clearly First Ladies, but neither was wife of a president.  Some lists will show them, some won't, and some will put them in a footnote.  The key concept, pretty well established, is that the "First Lady" is whoever fills the position, not just the wife of the president. -º¡º


 * Including Chelsea is also problematic. Angelica Van Buren was certainly a White House hostess, but was so because her father-in-law had no wife. Harriet Lane served as hostess as her uncle had no wife.   I believe the case is similar throughout history: when a president was married, no woman other than his wife was considered First Lady.  I rather doubt that Bill, Hillary, or Chelsea Clinton referred to Chelsea as the First Lady. The "Complete" list seems to confuse being a White House hostess with being a First Lady, and I think most people, most encyclopedias, and therefore -- we -- should distinguish the two roles. -- Someone else


 * Personally, I think that the article begins with a sentence that sums up the wife/hostess dichotomy: The position is traditionally filled by the wife of the President of the United States of America, but has also been filled by female relatives or friends of the sitting President.. Because this role is so frequently filled by the wife, we sometimes forget that it doesn't have to be the wife.  I used the examples of Harriet Lane and Angelica Van Buren because they were completely unambiguous due to the unmarried status of the president.  If you want an examples of a married president having a first lady other than his wife, I refer you to Jane Irwin Harrison (daughter-in-law of William Harrison), Letitia Semple (daughter of John Tyler), Priscilla Cooper Tyler (daughter-in-law of John Tyler) among others. -º¡º


 * Yes, my point is that I think the first sentence is wrong: The article defines "First Lady" as hostess: I think that in fact "First Lady" is the wife of the president, and that if someone else (in the absence or in preference to the wife) serves as hostess, she is deemed to be "fulfilling the duties" of the First Lady rather than actually being First Lady. I do not think one American in a thousand would identify "Chelsea Clinton" as a former First Lady, and I think rightly so. -- Someone else 21:09 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There have been several woman who are recognized as "First Ladies" who were NOT the wife of the president.  The hard part is that once one accepts this, it becomes very difficult to define how long or in what capacity one can "act" as a first lady before being regarded as a first lady.

It is patently absurd to regard Chelsea Clinton as First Lady. The post is held by either the wife of a president or a regular hostess where there is no wife, ie., where the President is unmarried, a divorceé or a widower. Chelsea was an occasional host, nothing more. If you want to find out who was First Lady between January 1993 and January 2001, there is a simple solution. The First Lady has a staff and an office in the East Wing. Who occupied the First Lady's East Wing office? Hillary Clinton. Who did the staff who worked for the First Lady regard as their boss? Hilary Clinton. Did Chelsea Clinton work from the East Wing? No. She never did. Her only association with that staff in that wing was to get their advice when in the absence of Hillary she acted as hostess. They were isolated individual cases. By not stretch of the imagination could Chelsea Clinton be regarded as First Lady and if she ever read this she would probably laugh her head off that anyone for one moment actually described her as such. ÉÍREman 21:43 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for calling my point "patently absurd", and I assume that complement applies to the newspapers that reported how Chelsea was assuming some of the duties of the first lady?


 * Can we break down exactly where the disagreement here is?


 * Does anybody doubt that there is a First Lady during the term of an unmarried president? Rose Cleveland, Harriet Lane, and Angelica Van Buren are all women considered to have been First Ladies during bachelor presidencies.


 * Does anybody doubt that a married president can have a woman OTHER than his wife as his designated First Lady? Jane Irwin Harrison comes to mind as a First Lady who was not the wife of the married president.


 * Does anybody doubt that Chelsea assumed at least some of the duties of the First Lady when her mother was unable to fill them?


 * You hit the nail on the head. Chelse assumed some of the duties of the First Lady. Assuming the duties does not make someone the holder of the post. When Queen Elizabeth is abroad, Prince Charles as a Councillor of State assumes some of her duties. That does not make him king. When the Irish prime minister (Taoiseach) is abroad, the Tánaiste (deputy prime minister) assumes some of the duties of the prime minister. But that doesn't make her prime minister. Assuming the First Lady's duties does not make someone First Lady. Not even Acting First Lady, if there is already a First Lady, as there was between 1993 and 2001, Chelsea's mum, Hilary. ÉÍREman 23:18 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * The list on the article page, as it stands, contains every woman who is ever known to have been first lady. If there is a desire to make some distinction between "Acting First Lady" and "First Lady", then let's figure out how to do it here.  I assure you, however, that being *married* to the president is not the factor that makes this distinction. -º¡º

Yes, just because there's a list on the net of a million lies that mentions Chelsea as First Lady, that doesn't make it so. One of the values of Wikipedia is that people (usually) attempt to come up with more authoritative evidence for a claim. If the official White House page mentions Chelsea as a "First Lady pro tem" :-) while Hillary was running for the Senate, then she should be in the list, but otherwise not. In any case, if Chelsea was doing a nontrivial amount of hosting and thus created some confusion in people's minds as to her true official status, that itself is worth mentioning in the list - something like "(note that Chelsea Clinton performed hosting duties while Hillary Clinton was running for the Senate)". Stan 22:29 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * Good luck finding a single definitive list of First Ladies that will satisfy everyone. Making a list of "Wives of Presidents" is MUCH easier than making a list of "First Ladies".  We can compare the lists that are available by looking at how they handle some key women:


 * Harriet Lane (Niece of James Buchanan)
 * whitehouse.gov - "First Lady"
 * firstladies.org - "First Lady"
 * grolier.com - "Official hostess"


 * Angelica Van Buren (Daughter-in-law of Martin Van Buren)
 * whitehouse.gov: "Lady of the White House"
 * firstladies.org - "First Lady"
 * grolier.com - "Official hostess"


 * What do you do when the authorities don't agree? -º¡º

You approach the White House press office and ask for an official list of First Ladies. They, more than anyone else will know what the correct definition of First Lady is and who meets it. ÉÍREman 23:18 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Uhm, there is no such thing as an offical list of what is, by definition, an unofficial title. -º¡º


 * When they spend taxpayer money on a First Lady's office and staff, you can bet there's somebody in government that is very interested in who is officially the First Lady. For the Clinton White House, there are dozens of people who will know the full scoop.  So either you research further and establish the truth, or simply back off from the claim; there are a bunch of articles where I couldn't determine a fact to my satisfaction, and didn't want to spend time and money researching, so I left a blank, question mark, or waffle words.  Better to leave a hole than invent a fiction. Stan 23:55 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Stan is right. The 'First Lady' costs American taxpayers' money, so there will be an official list. If they don't already have one (and I bet they do) they will put one of their staffers on to contact the First Lady's office and get them to compile a list for you. I have chased up the press offices in Buckingham Palace, Áras an Uachtaráin, the Quirinal Palace and the Vatican to get information for wiki, particularly when sorting out the naming conventions (names and titles) pages. Now it is your turn to get on to the press office in the White House and get the official list. And if they don't have an official list, they will have what is sometimes known in press office jargon as a recognised list, ie those who are regarded as First ladies, given that there may be some confusion over earlier designations of First Ladies. And I very much doubt if you will find Chelsea Clinton on either list. ÉÍREman 00:20 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

The official White House website has a list at http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/ -- Zoe

Indeed the whitehouse does have a list, but that does not make it an "official" list. By the same token, the National First Ladies Library has their own list, which isn't the "official" list either. -º¡º

I have looked through a couple of websites and I think whoever has taken information from them needs to be very careful about terminology. Non-wives are in all the lists I have seen not described as First Ladies. They are described as acted as First Lady which is a fundamental difference to served as First Lady or was First Lady. If you act as something does not make you it, merely that you carried out the functions without necessarily being in the job. And not one single solitary website I have seen gives the slightest credence to the idea of Chelsea Clinton as First Lady. She carried out some of the functions of First Lady; that is all. But that does not make her First Lady and nowhere suggests she was. BTW, what do you mean that the White House list is not an official list? The White House list is drawn up by the Office of the First Lady. Who the hell else is likely to know for certain who was First Lady? The Pope? Saddam Hussein? Wikipedia???

Two things are clear.
 * If anyone should know who was and who was not the First Lady, it is the White House. So it is safe to presume only those people on that list were First ladies. Anyone else wasn't and if on here need to be removed.
 * Chelsea Clinton was never First Lady and should be removed immediately from the list. ÉÍREman 04:26 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Some of the above is absolutely incorrect. If you want to see examples of non-wives who WERE "First Ladies" and are described AS "First Ladies" I refer you to these examples (among others):

- DONELSON, EMILY - First Lady, circa, 1829-1830, 1832-1834

- Andrew Jackson's First Lady = Emily Donelson

US History is full of first ladies who were not the wife of the president, and there are MANY citations for this. Now, you also asked "what do you mean that the White House list is not an official list", and I'll try to make myself clear again. The First Lady is not an official title, and as it is not an official title, there is no organization that can "officially" recognize who and who was not a first lady. The title does NOT go along with being wife of the president, so a list of wives is not the same as a list of first ladies. There is no lesson we can learn from what happens to Prince Charles when the Queen is away, or how things are handled by the Irish prime minister, as neither of those individuals are the First Lady of the United States. It would be arrogant for me to assume that things in European governments worked the same as things in American government, but that arrogance can cut both ways.

If this is as simple as you are trying to make it out to be, then let's start with a simple question and take it from there. Was Harriet Lane first lady under James Buchanan? -º¡º


 * I'll reiterate what Stan said above, that is, "When they spend taxpayer money on a First Lady's office and staff, you can bet there's somebody in government that is very interested in who is officially the First Lady." It didn't start out as an official title.  Social mores in the United States having evolved, though, the "office" has become more "official" over the years, and I think it's not too bold to state that whoever is spending money to establish an "Office of the First Lady" ought to be the definitive source as to who actually is the "First Lady." - Hephaestos


 * I'll say it once again. There is no "official" title of First Lady, and hence there is no definitive source.  For what it is worth, all of the so-called "official" text at whitehouse.gov is taken from the book The First Ladies which was published by the White House Historical Association.  In other words, the white house itself defers to someone else's opinion in compiling their list.  -º¡º


 * There's a qualitative difference in the way we should treat historical First Ladies and recent ones. It is indeed the case that old government data can be mistaken or misleading; wikifying the Navy stuff I've been adding has shown up some interesting mistakes in the official Navy info for instance.  But for a situation that existed just a couple years ago, it's possible and even easy to get definitive information from the actual people involved (I'll bet there's a White House protocol maven who would love to tell us all about Chelsea's unusual temporary role). Stan 05:13 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing what parallel with the Navy information you think we could draw. Whether or not a given ship was ever commissioned seems matter of fact. Whether or not a given woman was First Lady is less so. I'll repeat the open question I raised above, Was Harriet Lane first lady under James Buchanan? -º¡º


 * The Navy dates usually seem correct (launched before commissioned, etc), but in a few cases the names mentioned were of nonexistent people - took a bit of guesswork and fooling around with Google to figure out who DANFS was really referring to. The point is that Wikipedia can become a better source of information than other sites, but it requires extra effort to prove your assertions.  Harriet Lane can't help you with Chelsea, there are too many years and too many changes in the Presidency in between - you need something more recent.  As I said, there is at least one protocol staffer in the White House whose job it is to keep track of who is allowed to use which title, and one email from that person will give you the definitive answer for today's Presidency.  Without that email, you're reduced to arguing from false analogies. Stan 06:51 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi Stan. We still disagree fundamentally on whether there could be a "protocol staffer" with the authority to definitively state who has been a first lady.  We may find someone with an opinion, but that opinion would not be definitive.  I'm not fixing on Harriet Lane as part of some attempt sneak Chelsea on the list, but to get acknowledgement that non-wives can and have been first ladies.  Chelsea can probably be dealt with by using some sort of "acting" or "assumed duties" disclaimer, but there are already statements above that imply people want to deny the "First Lady" status of ALL non-wives.-º¡º


 * According to every text I've read, yes, Harriet Lane was First Lady during James Buchanan's term. And as you know, she wasn't the president's wife.  Herein lies the rub: what's the definitive source?  I say it's the White House.  You imply the White House Historical Society is flawed, and they may well be in some respects, but the fact remains that if the White House cites them as source, they are definitive.  If the White House cited you, or me, or Wikipedia as source, this would be definitive. - Hephaestos 05:47 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hephaestos, what makes the White House the ultimate arbiter? All of the content at whitehouse.gov is controlled by the sitting administration, not by some sacred board that hands out first lady titles like sainthoods.  The current content is just copied from the White House Historical Society.  The WHHS is a damned good source, but still not definitive.  I prefer the National First Ladies Library myself, but I still wouldn't go as far as to say that the NFLL is definitive either.-º¡º

Some more food for thought here. The "First Lady" title, such that it is, didn't even really exist until 1877. All exercises in granting "First Lady" status to women prior to the Hayes administration are going to be subjective, arbitrary, and can never be definitive. -º¡º


 * It's commonly accepted that First Ladies don't have to be wives; I knew that already, without ever having paid attention to the issue. Someone who argues  that the First Lady must always be a wife, whether before or after 1877, is on very thin ice and would need to cite their own authorities.  For recent First Ladies, the White House is by definition the authority; if you call up Apple and HR says "yes, Stan Shebs is an employee", it would be pretty bold to claim that this is not the definitive answer! Stan 18:05 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Both ÉÍREman and Someone else have made statements above regarding their opinion that "First Lady" is a title specific to president's wives, but neither of them have answered the Harriet Lane question. I read what you just wrote to say you are in partial agreement with me and consider their position to be "on thin ice".  Great, now we are a step closer to agreement.  I don't accept your Apple Computer analogy for the simple reason that whether you are employee of Apple is something that there is an authority who can give an official answer, while there is no such authority for the title of "First Lady".  I'll point out more clearly something I said above.  This isn't just about Chelsea, who we can handle with some sort of footnote, this is about all the other non-wife First Ladies as well. -º¡º


 * Actually, my opinion is that "First Lady" as currently used is specific to a wife WHEN THERE IS A WIFE. I have no doubt that some people have referred to non-presidential-wives as first ladies, and such women who were so referred to during their lifetimes belong on a list of first ladies, with an explanation.  If examples of women who were referred to as first ladies during their lives when the president was married to someone else can be found, that would be even more interesting. The term has been understood in different ways at different times, and I would use the way a specific woman was referred to CONTEMPORANEOUSLY as a guide to whether she belongs on the list.  Chelsea was not popularly imagined as, or referred to, as First Lady. As I've said, I think the first sentence ERRS in identifying "First Lady" with "hostess": it has meant that at times, and wife at times, and most often both.  A history of the development of the title would help the article. -- Someone else 19:07 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * It has been many years since we have had a non-wife first lady, so it isn't surprising that "current use" of the phrase doesn't reflect this situation. I also understand your position on the use of the phrase more clearly.  I'll try to touch your other points below, but I do agree that expanding the history of the phrase (or the history of the role) would help. -º¡º

Please stop misrepresenting what I said, BigFatBuddha. I never said that FL is a title specific to presidential wives, but in the vast majority of cases it is. In only a minority of cases as someone else been First Lady. As to your refusal to accept that the White House would not know who was and who was not first lady, that is ludicrous and absurd. Yes, there are staffers in the White House with the specific job of dealing with the First Lady post. There has been for many many years. They have access to information, to presidential records, to documentation than anyone else. If they say, on the basis of documentary evidence that X was a First Lady, Y wasn't, you better have damn good evidence to dispute what the clear archival evidence states. As to Chelsea Clinton, this is utterly and completely absurd. You continually fail to grasp the difference between being First Lady and acting as First Lady. But in fact it is a fundamental and crucial distinction. Chelsea stepped in for the First lady. She did not assume the post. She was not recognised in the post. She did not take over the running of the East Wing. She simply stood in for the First Lady. Nothing more.''' Now please check with the people who are paid to know, in the East Wing of White House. The Press Office can get you the definitive information. ÉÍREman 21:06 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * It was not my intent to misrepresent you, but to express what I understand your position to be. I read your statement Non-wives are in all the lists I have seen not described as First Ladies. as meaning you were taking the stance that a non-wife could only be described as something other than "First Lady" (perhaps "Acting First Lady" or "Official Hostess").  I'm going to ignore your repeated calling of my position "absurd" as debating that isn't going to gain us anything.  I'll repeat my key assertion once again, using different language; The White House administration is not the definitive arbiter of who has and has not been "First Lady" through the history of the United States.  I do grasp the distinction you are making between "being" and "acting as" first lady, and have said several times that I'm completely happy with putting some sort of "acted" disclaimer on Chelsea's name. -º¡º


 * Is the White House info accurate? (anon)

The office of the First Lady is based in the White House. If you want information on various questions as to the personnel, procedure and prococol involving the First Lady, the press office will assign someone to contact the First Lady's office and find out all the information they have that is relevant to your request. They will contact the office of protocol to find information, both current and past, about the role of the FL in terms of protocol, in terms of being state hostess, etc. They will also contact anyone who has produced briefing notes on past FLs, on who was what, who did what, when they did it, what they did not do and what they were not called.

Sometimes particularly when it deals with early presidents, there may be a dispute over who did what. People in the White House (like in the Quirinal, Buckingham Palace, the Vatican Palace, Downing Street, Áras an Uachtaráin, etc) are 'paid to know or paid to know how to find out'' the information. They usually know more than ordinary websites because they have access to state papers which ordinary website compilers would not have. That doesn't mean that they are always 100% right, but they are usually less wrong than other sources. And when it comes to clashes between the information coming from documented archived material or from amateur websites, the average historian goes with the former not the latter.

And no, no, no, BigFatBudda you still don't get the distinction. It is not a case of acting as First Lady, it is acting for the First Lady, which is a fundamentally different thing. Acting as First Lady means being de facto First Lady for that moment. Acting for the First Lady means that there is no suggestion whatsoever that you are the First Lady. Someone else is the First LAdy. You are the First Lady's stand-in, not the First Lady or the Acting First Lady. Chelsea was never First Lady. She was never Acting First Lady. She never acted as First Lady. She only ever acted '"for the First Lady, which means that she should be nowhere on this list. Even Presidents have acted for the First Lady; Kennedy stood in for Jackie on occasion during her pregnancy. FDR's mistress acted for the First Lady Eleanor (with Eleanor's agreement, she knew all about the woman's relationship with her husband, as both husband and wife had had their girlfriends staying in the residence on opposite sides of a corridor!) Acted for is fundamentally different to acted as and anyone who acted for'' should be completely removed from this list. ÉÍREman 20:55 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, but will ÉÍREman visit me in prison? -º¡º

More general response:

From my point of view, this is NOT about Chelsea. All she did was act as First Lady in a few unimportant ways while her mother was unable to. There were legal implications (beyond being "busy") that made it difficult for Hillary to fill the role, so her daughter stepped in. I'm happy to have us footnote or disclaim her role in some suitable way.

From my point of view, what this IS about is all the other women who have been First Ladies without being wives of the sitting president. JTdirl wrote above Anyone (not on the list at whitehouse.gov) needs to be removed. What, remove Rose Elizabeth Cleveland and Mary Arthur McElroy? Put Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson, when she died twenty years before Jefferson was president?

There are really only a small handful of troubling corner cases, and I'm researching them the best I can. There are really only a few classes that need to cause much worry, and if it would be fruitful I can list them here. -º¡º

Extended Confirmed Edit Request ( 10 - 11 - 2020 )
Can someone revert the last two edits to the article? Jill Biden is not yet FLOTUS. 45.251.33.39 (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Maka ⭐(talk) 06:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff
Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020)  755  21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Expected change 2021 - Mr. Emhoff should not be listed as a First Lady
If Doug Emhoff becomes First Gentleman in January (I say "if" because Covid-19, stroke, fatal heart attack is always plausible though very unlikely), the infobox in this article should read "Vacant" or similar. It should NOT call Mr. Emoff the "First Lady". Vowvo (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Integrate "causes" part into a more developed "role" section
The "role" section currently discusses some of the first ladies' capacities and activities, but is far from developed. Most notably, it will continue to be swayed by a recency bias in the future if it's not expanded or amended. In addition, the "causes" section is currently just an incomprehensive and uncited list of initiatives. In order to amend this, I think they should be merged and developed to weave in the varying timelines of all of the first ladies to better explain how the role has changed over time. Tunestoons (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"Clunky"?
the original read: The phrase "During the campaign" just hangs in the air, referring to nothing. What campaign?

I fixed this to: This way, it's clear what "the campaign" refers to. It's clear that Clinton decided to run for Senator, then passed her first lady duties to her daughter, then won and served for eight years. How is this "clunky", just because "senator" is repeated?

And you also did not "fix" the capitalization; "First Ladies" is supposed to be "first ladies"; you made it "first Ladies". JustinTime55 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, "clunky". But first, let's address the your somewhat... disingenuous comments. I did fix the capitalization after, and "clunky" was my edit summary revert of your first attempt at a bold change;
 * You reverted by stating "it was clunkier the other way around" in your summary, so let's drop the pretense at being offended by the word "clunky". The version you call "clunkier", I call "stable"; it has been in place for over 4 years, (since it was added on 19 October 2016 by ). Since then, there's been almost almost 2.8M views, and almost 1000 edits by over 550 editors... and you're the only one who seems to have a problem with the QUO version. You didn't even defend the your first edit, instead just tried changing it to something else by reverting yet again. And yes, the second version is also clunky, and you partially answered your own question; there is no need to repeat "senator". But the structure is just... awkward. The QUO version is still the best version. (Which you still have not yet reverted back to, btw) - wolf  23:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop the personal attacks, and lay off the attitude. I am not being disingenuous. I have defended my update above, but you seem to be deaf. "QUO" is not necessarily consensus, and is best only in your opinion. The problem with the "QUO" is that "During the campaign" hung in the air, with no explanation of what campaign. You have said next to nothing to defend why "QUO is best", only cited time, view, and edit statistics. Why are you married to it? If repeating the word "senator" is clunky, then the repetition can be deleted. The only thing I did wrong was depending on the edit summaries to explain my reasoning, and not wasting time here first. JustinTime55 (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, you made a change to content that has long been stable, it was not an improvement, and as such it was reverted. Plain and simple. If you still had an an issue with said content, or the revert, you should've then said so on the talk page. That was your opportunity to then explain why you were so confused about the reference to a "campaign". You then would've been referred to the preceding sentence that stated; "Clinton became the first first lady to run for political office.". So, obviously... that campaign. But, if it was still not clear to you, then you could've then been directed to the very next sentence, which stated; "Victorious, Clinton served as U.S. Senator from New York.", which should've cleared it right up. But instead, you chose to keep reverting, as if WP:EW doesn't apply to you. (And "the problem with QUO" is that is doesn't support your reverts.) Now you're complaining about supposed "personal attacks" and "attitide", while posting personal attacks and attitude. (historically, not awesome) Next time, just go to the talk page. Meanwhile, it appears said content has since been fixed, so with that, I think we're done here. Have a mice day - wolf  02:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, you made a change to content that has long been stable, it was not an improvement, and as such it was reverted. Plain and simple. If you still had an an issue with said content, or the revert, you should've then said so on the talk page. That was your opportunity to then explain why you were so confused about the reference to a "campaign". You then would've been referred to the preceding sentence that stated; "Clinton became the first first lady to run for political office.". So, obviously... that campaign. But, if it was still not clear to you, then you could've then been directed to the very next sentence, which stated; "Victorious, Clinton served as U.S. Senator from New York.", which should've cleared it right up. But instead, you chose to keep reverting, as if WP:EW doesn't apply to you. (And "the problem with QUO" is that is doesn't support your reverts.) Now you're complaining about supposed "personal attacks" and "attitide", while posting personal attacks and attitude. (historically, not awesome) Next time, just go to the talk page. Meanwhile, it appears said content has since been fixed, so with that, I think we're done here. Have a mice day - wolf  02:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Jill Biden portrait (cropped).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Jill Biden portrait (cropped).jpg

flotus
flotus is the first lady of united states. who is the wife of the current president of that time. 117.212.76.168 (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)