This is an archive of past discussions about Hillary Clinton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I agree, just have been afraid to stir that hornet's nest at this juncture. Title de-capitalization has been a contentious issue of late. There are many, many existing cases of improper capping of titles, and it would take decades to fix all of them even without the resistance efforts of a few editors who disagree with the guideline. ―Mandruss☎05:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I think we've been here before. As I said above, there is a lot of work yet to be done to get articles compliant with the guideline. If editors point to that undone work as their sole argument for reverting compliance edits, I don't see how we can ever make much progress. There is no question that MOS:JOBTITLES says "the first lady of the United States" should not be capitalized by virtue of the modifier "the". Editors are free to propose changes to the guideline, but the bio of Hillary Clinton is not the place to do that.However - Per the same guideline, it would be capitalized if the word "the" were removed, as "She served as First Lady of the United States", and I could support that just as easily. It reads fine to me, and it would bypass the conflict in this particular case. Any thoughts on that, Eyer? ―Mandruss☎14:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Eyer: Yes, lots of variations, but the guideline isn't inordinately complicated if one reads it carefully, understands the definition of "definite article", and has worked with it for a little while. The examples in the table help a lot. The guideline leaves a some ambiguity in a few isolated cases, but we can ignore those until the clear cases are fixed (or rephrase them to use one of the clear cases), which will keep us busy for quite some time.This edit includes multiple errors, including failure to capitalize "First Lady of Arkansas" when there is no modifier. ―Mandruss☎15:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Corrected. In general MOS:CAPS avoids unnecessary capitalization, so as I re-edited the article, I was more likely to insert a modifier, rather than capitalize the title. There's a good chance I missed something. I am open to additional edits, of course. Eyer (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss: Eyer and I discussed this at Talk:First Lady of the United States. Eyer won the debate by a very unfair gambit: he cited Reliable Sources. 0;-D I still think "first lady" lowercase looks awful. It doesn't even look like a title (unlike "president" where it is clear what/who is being referenced). You look at "first lady" and you think, "first lady to do what?" and "wouldn't it be more modern to say first woman"? But I can't fight City Hall (or maybe I should say city hall) so I suggest instead that we talk around that rather outdated phrase as much as possible. "She is the first wife of a former president to serve in the Cabinet". "She is the first president's wife to be a naturalized citizen." And how do you feel about the use of FLOTUS? Since you two are supporters of this change, would you also be willing to find and rephrase the really ugly constructions like "the first first lady who.." in these articles? (BTW Mandruss, the reason I reverted the change is that I regarded it as a bold change to long-established content, likely to be controversial and needing discussion. I thought (and still think, but oh well) that this particular phrase could be a reasonable exception to the MOS. Then when I saw that Eyer was doing the same thing at multiple pages, I started the discussion at the FLOTUS article.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN:Eyer won the debate by a very unfair gambit: he cited Reliable Sources. 0;-D That's not unfair, it's just out-of-venue.As I see it, a large part of this problem is that MOS really needs to be "top-down", unlike other types of guidelines. Its sole reason for existence is to seek site-wide consistency on style, and should be informed by the best available information, thoroughly examined and discussed. We simply can't do that among handfuls of editors at article level. The only good reason to discuss something at article level is when it can vary between articles, and I would argue that the use of capitals in titles is not one of those things. This kind of thing needs thorough evidence-based discussion, once, and we should then accept the result whether we agree with it or not. "It doesn't look right to me" is a terrible reason to deviate from MOS, since our own ideas of correctness on things like this are usually not particularly well-informed ideas. I've held ideas about some of the finer points of language for decades, only to learn in middle age that they were wrong per language authorities. ―Mandruss☎17:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss, did you miss the fact that "very unfair gambit" was a joke? (You did reproduce the smiley.) And perhaps you didn't notice that I am AGREEING to let it be lowercase ("Eyer won the debate", "I can't fight City Hall") - having been convinced by the Reliable Sources provided by Eyer. So it wasn't necessary to spend a paragraph arguing your point. I believe I am allowed to express distaste for the result I am nevertheless accepting, as well as offer suggestions to make the result less bad. So, per my question, are you going to do any rewriting to fix some of the awkward "first first lady" type constructions that result from this application of MOS? Or will that be left to the rest of us to go around behind and clean up? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I have no particular problem with "first first lady", any more than I would have with "first first responder on the scene" or "He decided that that was the wrong approach." Sometimes the most natural way to say something is to repeat a word twice.If somebody spoke the words "She was the first first lady to visit China", would you have difficulty understanding their meaning in context? Would you say to yourself, "Well that sounds awkward"? I wouldn't. I don't think it would cross my mind that it was the slightest bit unusual. I don't think it makes any difference that the eyes are involved. ―Mandruss☎19:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm having a difficult time following the preferences of the other editors and I don't want to keep editing chasing a whim. I'll bow out now. If you'd like, feel free to change any of the work I've done to a style that you prefer. Eyer (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The Paul Fray incident is missing from the article. I propose that the following language be added to the section on Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign:
In July 2000, the media reported that Clinton had called Paul Fray--who had managed Bill Clinton's unsuccessful congressional campaign--a "fucking Jew bastard" in 1974.[1] The report received international media coverage[2] and "rocked" Clinton's campaign.[3] Clinton denied that she had referenced Fray's Jewish heritage.[4][5][6]
If it really was just one report, you would have a point, MelanieN. However, as you can plainly see, there were multiple reports. Also, it became an issue in her 2000 campaign. The fact that it happened long ago really isn't relevant. SunCrow (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
SunCrow, and as Snooganssnoogans pointed out, a witness recanted. I don't know how many there were, haven't looked too deeply into this. Anyway, there's clearly zero impact of her alleged comment on her biography. Many New York Jews, myself included, voted for Hillary in 2000 despite this story coming out during the 2000 campaign. All the sources I've seen on it are from July 2000, except one Daily Caller piece trying to throw the kitchen sink at her in July 2016. This is the definition of a nothingburger. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu, a witness didn't exactly recant; he simply said that he wasn't in the room during the alleged incident. That's not the same as saying it never happened. SunCrow (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
SunCrow, so a witness acknowledged that he didn't witness what he alleged that he witnessed? And this you want to add to her biography? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
SunCrow, two people say something, the subject denies it, and everybody moves on. That's what you want to include in an encyclopedia article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
These are allegations from one book published in 2000 about an alleged incident, denied by the Clintons, that happened 26 years prior. The person behind the claim is flaky[1] and the other person who reportedly heard it later changed his story[2]. This is akin to all the unverified claims by various individuals of Trump using the N-word in their presence. We don't add unverified reports of racism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Coincidentally, there is a similar discussion occurring on the Ronald Reagan article regarding a tape that has been released where Ronald Reagan is being explicitly racist. I assume that out of consistency that the editor SunCrow will express support for including that confirmed instance of racism on the Reagan page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
While I don't think the standard for mentioning allegations is that they are true, I do not think this one has the weight for inclusion. While it might have been an issue in her 2000 campaign, it has long faded in significance. It was not an issue in her 2008 or 2016 campaigns. Bear in mind that historians and journalists determine what is important, not Wikipedia editors. While that may not be always be fair, it is policy. TFD (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't recall this bogus story even being an issue in 2000 - in fact I never even heard of it -and I'm a Jewish NYer too who has been editing this article for years. I agree with Muboshgu, TFD, Melanie et al. No notability, no weight for her life bio, no consensus, no way. Tvoz/talk04:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Tvoz, I was not even living in New York during the 2000 elections; nevertheless, I recalled this story fairly clearly even though it came out 19 years ago. But the issue here is not what I did or did not recall or (with respect) what you have or haven't heard of. The issue is notability. The cited sources seem to me to establish that. (By the way, what makes the allegation "bogus" in your eyes? The fact that the Clintons denied it?) SunCrow (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
No photo of Tim Kaine
I suggest deleting one or both of the photos of Clinton alone in Des Moines, Iowa, and in Tempe, Arizona, in the "2016 presidential campaign" section to make room for one of her and her running mate, Tim Kaine. Seems odd not to have an image of him. Also, those two photos seem too big and don't seem to serve a real purpose. YoPienso (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. In my opinion, we need a photo with both HC and TK, so the second one isn't ideal. I don't particular like the first one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The lead currently starts, Hillary Rodham Clinton (néeHillary Diane Rodham; ... Her name change from her birth name to Hillary Rodham Clinton is more than just a surname change, it's also a middle name change to drop Diane for Rodham. The MOS, however, says née should be followed (only?) by the new surname. Per MOS:NEE: Editors may denote this with "born" followed by the subject's full name; they may also use née (feminine) and né (masculine) followed by the surname. Should we should use born instead of née?—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
They are synonyms, “née” and “born”. The choice is one of style. Some say to not use foreign words in lieu of good English words. Use what sources use, and if that doesn’t help, go to the MOS. Possibly it doesn’t matter. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this, so I went off the MOS, which doesn't imply that it's merely style when the change is more than a surname. Now, if I go to mainspace to née, which redirs to Given name#Maiden and married names (Aside: strange that surname changes being written about at Given name), it also only mentions it's use regarding surname changes.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, Encyclopedia Brittanica does have née Hillary Diane Rodham. However, WP's MOS only mentions née ... followed by the surname, so that appears to be the standard for here. Therefore, use born to show changes beyond the surname.—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It's best to use "born" here. Although "née" would be technically correct, in the English-speaking world it is almost exclusively used only to refer to a married woman who has adopted her husband's surname and is only used with her birth surname. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
However, I'm curious about the Diane. Has she legally changed her name or does she simply not use her middle name? If the latter then the first line should read Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née Rodham; .... We don't miss out middle names just because they're not commonly used. Ever. That would mean changing many thousands of articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
And it appears it's the latter. Diane is still her middle name, whether she commonly uses it or not. So I've changed it back to the correct format that we always use. Problem solved. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally, given some of the edit history on this issue it appears that this article suffers from the problem that we sometimes encounter with more prominent people. For some bizarre reason, some editors seem to think we should make an exception for them from our usual procedures. We use full legal name in the lede. Always have done. For everybody, no matter how famous they may be. Doesn't matter that they don't commonly use one of their names. It is still their name. "Born" suggests they have actually changed it, which is completely inaccurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Necrothesp:Is there a source on her current (or recent) legal name? Regarding middle names in the US, not hyphenating usually means the middle name was replaced by the maiden name, and the last name was changed to the husband's.[3] However, one could theoretically register multiple names, and have multiple "middle names", thus keeping their birth-given middle name and adding their maiden name as another "middle name" while taking the husband's surname. Barring accessing primary sources, most times we can only assume what one's legal name is, often by how the subject presents themselves as. Incidentlly, according to footnote c in the article, she had not changed her last name from "Rodham" as of 1993, but had been publicly using both "Clinton" or "Rodham Clinton" for years. Did she finally change?—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Note that "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" seems to have been stable in this article for many years until recently. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure. I'm not inclined to change it. I was just natually curious if there is a source or just an assumption that Diane was kept. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The article referenced says "She has never legally changed her name from Hillary Rodham." [At least as of February 1993.] But would she have ever needed to "legally change" her name? From discussions elsewhere it's my understanding that the US follows the common law practices and there isn't such a thing as a "legal name" to change, with a person generally able to use whatever name they like or even different names in different contexts without having to go through a formal re-registration process. Name change#United States implies that usage alone is sufficient and changes because of marriage do not need to go through hurdles. So she could be operating as "Hillary Clinton" or "Hillary Rodham" or "Hillary Rodham Clinton" or "Mrs Bill Clinton", with or without "Diane" in there depending on the circumstances without it making any legal difference. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
In US, you have a legal name, but there is no issue with you using a different name in public. That aside, Necrothesp had made the point above that WP for "some bizarre reason" sometimes has a different standard for "prominent people". We usually never "really" know if someone legally changed their name or not. We typically are fine going off what they (or sources) publicy use as their "legal" name. In this case, there are two post-1993 sources cited that say her name is "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton". Regards—Bagumba (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I fear my Hillary name fatigue is a permanent condition. And I predict that editors will be debating these things well after she's gone, in an almost endless series of new consensuses. ―Mandruss☎23:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It should either be Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton, née Hillary Diane Rodham. Not both. It is unclear what her legal name is. As of 1993, it was still Hillary Diane Rodham. She used the name Hillary Rodham Clinton as New York senator and U.S. Secretary of State, which could mean that is her legal name, but we have no reliable sources to sustain that suggestion. CookieMonster755✉20:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I have restored it. "it is either one format or the other, not both" is completely untrue. We still need the "née" bit added to show that she has changed her name. This is what we always do with women who change their name on marriage, whether they keep their maiden name within their full name or not. No reason to make an exception for Clinton. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The "née Rodham" in the introductory sentence is completely unnecessary and should just be removed, since "Rodham" is included in her full name immediately before that. It reads as very redundant. Her birth name is clearly given in the infobox and in the "early life" section, and that's all that is needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. "Rodham" in her current full name otherwise looks like another middle name. An infobox is not a replacement for text (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), and her name there is anyways buried under all those office positions. Finally, many people will not read past the opening paragraph, let alone the lead or "Early life".—Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It really doesn't. Traditional common practice, at least in the U.S., is for women to take their husband's last name and move their maiden name back to a middle name, so I would actually automatically assume that "Rodham" was her maiden name, and I would be correct. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Partially correct. US women traditonally took their husband's last name, but changing their middle names has only been more prevalent in the last few decades (Kiplinger). In Clinton's case, she didn't change her middle name, she added an extra one.—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Madeleine Jana Korbel Albright (born Marie Jana Korbelová; May 15, 1937)
There is no functional difference between "née" and "born", but there are some stylistic hangups with "née", and "born" is simple correct English. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
At least at MOS:NEE, it seems that née only lists a last name change e.g. "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née Rodham ...", while born would be the full former name e.g. "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born Hillary Diane Rodham ..." Using "née", when possible, is less repetitious. Née doesn't seem like an option for Albright as she added a middle name (Korbel) in addition to changing her last name.—Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
No, she didn’t. Korbelová and Korbel are the same name. In Slavic languages, the suffix "ova" is added to the last names of female, where it means "belonging to" the male, the father or husband. It’s like specifying Rodham as surname-Rodham, and changing to Rodham surname-Clinton. Rodham didn’t change. Korbel didn’t change. The precedent is strong. Use born. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC) SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
If a name that was positioned last is replaced by a new last name, regardless of whether or not the former last name was made into a middle name, that is a name change.—Bagumba (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I got confused by your earlier comment of No, she didn’t. I thought you were saying that she did not change her last name.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Bagumba, you wrote "Albright as she added a middle name (Korbel)". I meant, not she did not add Korbel, it was always there. She didn't add Korbel, she added Albright. If you accept that Korbel=Korbelová (ová is a redundant surname designation), Albright and Clinton are the same, with respect to name changes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: She added a middle name, Korbel, even if its origin was her last name at birth. I do see your point that the same logic applies to Clinton. She not only changed her last name (Rodham->Clinton), but she also added a new middle name (Rodham).—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I can understand why you are holding that perspective, but it is wrong. “Rodham” did not get changed to “Clinton”. If I change the sequence “1 2 3” to “1 2 3 4” I do it by adding the “4”, not by ever changing a “3” into a “4”. There is an old tradition of a woman dropping her surname and adding her husbands surname on marriage, but a more recent tradition used by both woman is to keep all existing names and add the husband’s surname to the end of her name, explicitly adding, not changing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC). Point being: I support the current lede sentence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The section on the 2016 election states "she won the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes, or 2.1% of the voter base." This is sort-of accurate but probably misleading (to math and government nerds) and inconsistent with the way the results are reported in the 2016 United States presidential election article. Secretary Clinton received 48.18% of the popular vote, which is more than the 46.09% received by Mr. Trump, but still less than 50% required to win. The current text can be innocently misconstrued to imply she won 52.8% of the popular vote. Again, I'm not saying this article is wrong, only that we could easily make it more clear to the casual reader and more consistent with related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canute (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The way I read it, Canute is saying the wording is potentially ambiguous because the sentence doesn't give the actual popular vote result. If the reader forgets about non-major-party candidates they can assume all votes went to either Clinton or Trump. Although based on that assumption I get 51.05% for Clinton: , ; x and y would be the Trump and Clinton vote percentages. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Gaming consensus with multiple rules for different pages
Speaking of en.wp policy on gaming the consensus-building process, why, on this page, is there this new "do not reinstate reverted material" notice rather than a standard 1RR? This seems like a very effective method of enabling the stonewalling described in point #1 of the cited policy. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c23:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Pages that are highly susceptible to contentious edits may be subject to tighter scrutiny of proposed alterations, particularly where the page is very mature, and a high proportion of its content is the result of previous discussion and consensus forming processes. bd2412T01:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just had a look at the TP history. "Honeymoon" has never been discussed and Haiti has been discussed very sparsely given the 2.15m Google references about HRC and Haiti. (Obviously not all of those refs are RS, but it's pretty certain there are hundreds, if not thousands). This will be an interesting test case to see whether BRD works as intended (to have policy-based discussions) or if it does not (and ends up not leading to policy-based discussions). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c01:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The issue is not merely whether a specific topic has been discussed; the page represents consensus as to the sum total of what constitutes a complete article on the subject. Your assertion is that the article is in fact incomplete because it lacks reference to relations with a specific country. Of course, there are many countries that Clinton visited repeatedly or with whom she engaged in significant diplomacy that are not mentioned in the article - for example, France ("Hillary Clinton" + France gets nearly 40 million Google hits), Poland, Mexico, Brazil, Sudan, and South Africa. Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom are mentioned only in a single footnote, which also happens to mention Haiti. bd2412T02:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Articles like "The King and Queen of Haiti" pretty clearly suggest that there is some special importance to the relationship with Haiti, which might explain why Haitian-Americans protested when she was scheduled to speak at CUNY in 2017, and why her Brooklyn offices were picketed by protestors in 2016. Hillary Clinton was not involved in many of the countries you mentioned, nor has she written a chapter of her book Hard Choices about any of those countries. This weight given to her relationship with Haiti in reliable sources is why it is WP:DUE for her biographical entry to discuss her particular interest in the country. (See also, the many books written about post-earthquake NGO relief (one of which was shortlisted for a PEN non-fiction award). For those passing by, WP:DUE is part of the neutral-point-of-view policy which is, in turn, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.)
So far, I haven't seen a policy-based argument against including information about Haiti. If you do (or anyone does) decide to try to come up with such an argument, I would ask that it be added to the talk page section about Haiti (just above) rather than in this section, which is labeled as being meta-level discussion about the BRD notice and stonewalling. (1RR is of course imperfect too, as it can lead to bloat.) Let's try to stay focused in this section on the effects of the disciplinary sanctions warning notice rather than leading readers down the garden path. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c07:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The lede of this article is not neutral and not suitable for TFA, says the largest contributor to this article, who brought it to FA
I did intensive work on this article for a decade, and if you look at the page contributor stats for this article, you'll see that by any of the metrics, I am the largest contributor to it. I was the primary editor who got it to GA and then to FA status. Then during 2015–16 I retired from working on this and other articles concerning highly visible and contentious political subjects. I took it off my watchlist – when you spend that much time on something and then leave, it's better not to know.
But a few days ago I got a notice on my talk page that it's going up on WP:TFA later this month. So I took a look at just the lede, and I have to say, is no longer neutral and does not meet the standards of WP:LEDE or of WP:FACR.
As Secretary of State, she took responsibility for security lapses related to the 2012 Benghazi attack, which resulted in the deaths of American consulate personnel, but defended her personal actions in regard to the matter.
And had I still been working on the article, I would like to think the lede also would have had something like this:
Her use of a private email server during her time as secretary later came under investigation for possible disclosure of classified information; in 2016 the FBI concluded that Clinton had been "extremely careless" but recommended that no charges be filed.
But none of those are there now. I haven't gone through all the Talk history, although I gather that one reason they were removed is that these were all the subjects of relentless Republican partisan attacks. That is quite true – and the cynical Republican exploitation of the Benghazi victims was particularly shameful – but there were real events at the bottom of all of these that genuinely merited investigation. And they certainly have had a consequence on her life and the course of the nation (if she'd just shown up on her first day of work at Foggy Bottom and started using hrc@state.gov, she'd probably be in the White House right now).
WP:LEDE says that it has to include "any prominent controversies", which all of these were. And when I was a heavy contributor to this article I took pride in the fact that it represented the good, the bad, the neutral, the ugly, everything. It no longer does. And I actually believe that the way the lede looks now does a disservice to HRC. By pretending these things never happened, it risks discrediting the rest of the article in the eyes of many readers, who will then never discover the many genuine accomplishments she has had during her life and career.
There are also two pieces of misleading text in the current lede:
As First Lady of the United States, Clinton advocated for gender equality and healthcare reform.
This makes her sound like a traditional first lady who adopts "causes" which she then advocates for. When Hillary was in fact involved in serious political and legislative efforts as first lady. Which none of her successors has done. She remains the only First Lady ever to have run for public office, which the lede used to say but no longer does.
She received more than 65 million votes, the third-highest amount of votes ever received in a U.S. presidential election.
This is an example of innumeracy, as this ranking is a function of population growth more than anything else. Consider that when Wikipedia was first created, not that long ago, it could have said that Al Gore (the previous victim of the Electoral College) had received the second-highest amount of votes ever received in a U.S. presidential election. But now it would have to say 10th highest, and after next year he'll be the 12th highest, and so on. It's a meaningless statistic in this context.
Finally, the lede does a very poor job of summarizing not only her time as U.S. First Lady, but also as U.S. Senator. For instance the old lede mentioned her initial support of the Iraq War, which probably did her the most harm of anything in the 2008 primary race. The only thing the current lede says about her time as senator is that she got re-elected.
Anyway, the current editors on this article can do what they will, but I felt duty bound to at least point out these things. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I also notice that the picture used is from 2009, when she became secretary of state. The rationale is that it was the period for which she is most notable, but I would say it was in 2016 when has the Democratic candidate for president. TFD (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, regarding the photo, I expect that many of us were planning on updating it with her new federal government headshot in January 2017. We should probably update it now using a 2016 campaign photo. The rest of the comments, no opinion yet. The lead shouldn't get overly bogged down in details that the body goes in depth on, but it does need to convey the big points. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, that edit was definitely an improvement. I do think though that the official secretary of state portrait is still worth showing in the article in a more appropriate location, so I have added it to the secretary of state section instead. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans's views:
Include: In 1994, as First Lady of the United States, her major initiative, the Clinton health care plan, failed to gain approval from the U.S. Congress. In 1997 and 1999, Clinton played a leading role in advocating the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act.
Do not include: Her years as First Lady drew a polarized response from the American public.
Do not include: The only First Lady to have been subpoenaed, she testified before a federal grand jury in 1996 regarding the Whitewater controversy, but was never charged with wrongdoing in this or several other investigations during the Clinton presidency.
Include Benghazi, but present it as the faux controversy that it was
Include text on the emails controversy, but omit undue text that she was careless, and include text that notes that the scandal received more media coverage than any other topic during the presidential campaign[4]Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed that this "third-highest amount of votes ever received" WP:SYNTH statement should not be in the lede or indeed the article at all. It is important and relevant that Clinton got 2.1% more votes than Trump in the same election (as stated in the preceding lede sentence and the article body), but it is a rather meaningless factoid that she trounced F.D. Roosevelt by 137% and Abraham Lincoln by 2878%.
Thank you, Wasted Time R. I agree with all your suggestions except the sentence that reads "her years as First Lady drew a polarized response from the American public". To me, that seems a bit vague. SunCrow (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hearing no further discussion, I have gone ahead and made the suggested changes that I believe there is consensus on. I did note that the FBI criticized Clinton regarding the e-mail/server issue, which is accurate and fair. I also tweaked the language on Clinton's advocacy as First Lady and added a sentence on 9-11 issues she addressed in the Senate. Wasted Time R, thank you for pointing out these issues. SunCrow (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's a bit surprising that this was used as today's featured article given it was reviewed for featured article status in 2014 - five years ago and before the presidential election campaign in which she was a nominee. Is there an expiry date for featured articles being used as TFAs, or are articles re-reviewed as part of the TFA process? I've no reason to think this shouldn't be featured - indeed, it seems very thorough and well-referenced, on a skim-reading - but five years is a long time for an article like this and I was surprised when I noticed the delay. I tried reading the various TFA pages but they were rather opaque about process. › Morteetalk02:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I did see that, but didn't quite understand what review criteria were applied in practice. Looking at the page history, the reviews seemed cursory (which makes sense for recent FAs, which have by definition been recently and stringently vetted). I wondered if I was missing something and in general if there was a sense that for an article where the subject has developed so far since the article was reviewed for featured article status, it should be double-checked a bit more before highlighting it. I guess I was also just surprised by the delay in general, because I'm only really familiar with DYK, where front page appearances happen quickly or not at all. › Morteetalk23:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
You mentioned that prominent controversies should be listed. Considering the so called “Clinton body count” or whatever it’s going by is a more well known conspiracy/controversy should be listed as part of the body (probably in its own section since it’s not a verified thing, but rather an aspect of culture and right-wing media)? Bgrus22 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I empathize Wasted Time R, I've also put effort into pages that have since deteriorated radically as they've become more and more controlled. It's embarrassing to see my name on the author's list of such entries. At least you picked a wise username! 🌿 SashiRolls t · c00:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Walmart
Since I've been looking into the question of outsourcing garment-industry production to Haiti, I had a look to see what was said in this biography about Clinton's tenure on the board of Walmart ((1986-1992): Bentonville, Arkansas). Surprisingly, there is nothing. What should be done about this fairly major omission concerning six years of her life? Walmart is one of the key buyers from the Caracol Industrial Park. [5] 🌿 SashiRolls t · c00:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like you are trying to synthesize some sort of connection between Clinton's involvement as a member of the Board of Directors of Walmart from 1986-1992, and Walmart's separate involvement in Haiti reported decades later. However, I do think that the article should mention that she served on that Board, and would support the addition of some sentence along the lines of, "Clinton served on the Board of Directors of Walmart from 1986 to 1992", with an appropriate citation. bd2412T01:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Be my guest, since my own work has repeatedly been binned based on "I don't like it" reasoning, I'll respect the intended chilling and stay away from the mainspace entry for the time being. It would be well, of course, to use the second of the two references which I provided above. The first mentions that Sam R. Walton was one of her major donors in 2016, but talking about that in mainspace would be synth, as would wondering what HRC's thoughts were on Bill's much criticized sweatshop initiative just after she left the BoD of Walmart. [6]; I'll bet her Dad (a Goldwater supporter who made a living in textiles) might have had things to say about it! In any case, such text(ure) risks being a bit off-topic. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c02:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
You've expressed your opinion about what you would like to see in the entry before. There is no coattrack 'Clinton Haiti Scandal' contrary to your assertion. Proposed on this talkpage are multiple sources concerning her role in Caracol Industrial Park (whether good or bad we should leave the reader to judge), and a few mentions. about how Clinton worked behind the scenes for Martelly (ditto) (I may not have linked to the Miami Herald's Haiti specialist's work (mentioning Martelly). You might also want to scan, for example, the citations of former Haitian Prime Minister Bellerive in the reliable source you deleted from the entry. That sort of influence should be mentioned in a bio. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c02:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
If there are notable voices criticizing Clinton's role in Haiti or Wal-Mart or whatever, then the best approach is to just explicitly cite those criticisms with attribution and in proportion to WP:DUE weight. Forcing readers to bust out the corkboard and yarn to track down Pepe Silvia is not really going to improve the encyclopedia. Nblundtalk03:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
You should add to Clinton's tenure at Rose's law firm. Mention that major clients included Arkansas-based companies Walmart and Tyson and she served on the board of Walmart. TFD (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually it looks like all of that is already here. in addition to her positions with nonprofit organizations, she also held positions on the corporate board of directors of TCBY (1985–92),[129] Wal-Mart Stores (1986–92)[130] and Lafarge (1990–92).[131] TCBY and Wal-Mart were Arkansas-based companies that were also clients of Rose Law.Nblundtalk03:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
My mistake. I forgot about the name change from Wal-Mart to Walmart when searching. My apologies. This bit is fine, the lack of info about HRC's role in Haiti remains a problem. It is a question of adding neutral expository prose, not about deleting major stories for fear there may be dragons. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c03:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Lifelong interest in Haiti
The following edit was reverted 17 minutes after it was made. No talk page justification was made for this reversion. There is a long history of trying to prevent the encyclopedic recording of information about the Clintons' role as power-brokers in Haiti on en.wp (cf. Clinton Foundation talk page archives & the Haiti-US relations talk page archives, both linked below). It seems that the Clintons' interest in Haiti began from the time of their honeymoon (as the article cited says, she herself says so repeatedly), so this seems to be a very logical place to talk about the origins of that interest.
The newlyweds honeymooned in Haiti,[1] a country where each would acquire considerable influence in the following 40 years.[2]
While I am not optimistic, I do hope there will be no further gaming of consensus. (The reason given, "where they honeymooned does not seem particularly important" is a very interesting claim given that the preceding sentence is about Bill & Hillary's mothers not approving of Hillary's decision to continue using her maiden name, a factoid much more appropriate for a book-length bio). One sentence about HRC's lifelong interest in the country is obviously justified. (At present there is no mention of Haiti on this page at all except buried in a footnote. Since both references mention both the honeymoon and the power they've acquired in Haiti, I'm not sure what to make of this obvious oversight.)
The facts are that HRC wrote about Haiti in her book Hard Choices (Chapter 23) and visited Haiti as much as any other country during her time at the State Department. She likewise intervened personally with René Préval to make it possible for President Martelly to replace the former as president (this story is oddly only present in the politico.eu version of the same story) and that HRC says that her long-standing interest in Haiti stems from this period. Of course, before that there was the story of the subsidized rice shipments from Arkansas that drove Haitian farmers out of business, the removal of Aristide, the invasion Bill Clinton authorized on his watch as President... We should also probably add something about Caracol Industrial Park during her time at the State Department, but there are better references for that.
NB: originally I included the BBC article because I'd been reading the politico.eu story which does not include the point about the honeymoon (The politico.com article, by the same author, does, but appears much shorter than it used to be...)
President Clinton and Secretary Clinton pose for a photo with workers at Caracol Industrial Park.
No, where they honeymooned is not important (and is something I don't recall ever seeing in a Wikipedia bio). I also do not see a place in this article, which is jam-packed with information about one of the most storied careers in US modern politics, that merits inclusion of Clinton's involvement with Haiti. Also, please stop casting aspersions (ridiculous gaming accusation) and ranting about unrelated issues on other articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Jam-packed, but nothing about Haiti. Odd, that. You wrote:
I also do not see a place in this article, [...], that merits inclusion of Clinton's involvement with Haiti.
Could you cite a policy based reason? I just did a quick scan for "honeymoon" "Hillary Clinton" which returned the BBC, Politico, Miami Herald, ABC News, The Times, the Washington Post, Reuters and even the Daily Beast, which I know you particularly appreciate. If you search instead for "lune de miel" you find RFI §, Le Nouvelliste (Haiti)... "voyage de noces" adds Le Monde, La Croix, Paris Match, La Presse (Canada). Given your history, I doubt I'll persuade you that indeed even the "honeymoon" is pretty obviously WP:DUE for a bio, especially presented neutrally as it is above. Now as for "Hillary Clinton" Haiti there are 2.15 million results returned by Google. As your formula goes: "you should self-revert immediately". § ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c00:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
There is something wrong with the sentence as proposed. It reads as if it is intended to suggest that the honeymoon was itself part of a continuous effort to obtain political influence in that country. The use of the phrase "in the following 40 years" is misleading, because it suggests that involvement in Haiti was a constant theme for this article's subject every year from that point on. In fact, no evidence has been presented of any such involvement in the 1980s or early 1990s. Activity in the 2010s is already fairly thoroughly discussed in Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, which we need not duplicate here. The concepts of the location of their honeymoon, and decades-later political activity with respect to that country, are distinct, and should not be confused in this article. bd2412T13:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I thank you for the hard work you've put in to put your finger on what might bother someone about the logical entailments of the sentence The newlyweds honeymooned in Haiti, a country where each would acquire considerable influence in the following 40 years.
Concerning your first point, it is true that this source only mentions 20 years explicitly (from the time of the invasion to 2015). That could be (and could have been) easily fixed, rather than reverted, by changing "in the following 40 years" to "later in their careers".
Over the past two decades, the once-and-perhaps-future first couple repeatedly played a key role in Haiti’s politics, helping to pick its national leaders and driving hundreds of millions of dollars in private aid, investment and U.S. taxpayer money toward its development. They’ve brought with them a network of friends and global corporations that never would’ve been here otherwise. Together, this network of power and money has left indelible marks on almost every aspect of the Haitian economy.
source
The second point you make is directly contradicted by the source:
The Clintons like to cast their relationship with Haiti in personal terms—invariably starting with their 1975 visit as newlyweds to Port-au-Prince, ... (same source)
Unless you want to call into question the reliability of the source, there is no policy-based reason not to make the link as I did, since the source explicitly says that the Clintons themselves make the link. (A look at Chapter 23 of her book Hard Choices would be wise, I suspect, as in that book she advocates "rebuilding better" in Haiti, and seeks to return to the Duvalier-era garment industries they saw during their honeymoon (at the time the sewing of all US baseballs was outsourced to Haiti, according to Laurent Dubois in Haiti: The Aftershocks of History) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c15:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I fixed the text that was said to be misleading. I apologize for writing too quickly (I just subtracted 1975 from 2015 while no longer looking at the text). Otherwise, there has been no policy-based reason to oppose its inclusion. Parenthetically, I had a look at the mess that is Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State and notice there is no mention of her keynote address at Caracol Industrial Park. (cf. [7], [8], & [9]).🌿 SashiRolls t · c00:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I see that you continue to edit war the information out despite my modification, and despite the 14 sources from 4 different countries I provided above that mention it (France, Canada, US, Haiti), as well as the direct quote given in the source. Your claim that this is "undue" do not hold water. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c00:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
You are treating this like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please stop. If you really think this info needs to be in the article, gain consensus for it. Personally, I don't see how their honeymoon location is important. Moreover, your wording in the initial edits make an "A then B" implication not explicitly stated by the sources. The information about their influence in Haiti is important and makes sense to include. That they honeymooned there doesn't seem important in the context of their massive political careers. EvergreenFir(talk)00:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Not sure why you put your later comment above mine, it's no big deal. In the spirit of your suggestion, I nominate the following sentences or parts of sentences for the Personal Life page (since they are not mentioned in papers in 4 different countries, unlike the honeymoon story, and don't relate to major power-brokering in a foreign country...)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rodham was a favorite student among her teachers[.]
She participated in swimming and softball and earned numerous badges as a Brownie and a Girl Scout[.]
She was elected class vice president for her junior year but then lost the election for class president for her senior year against two boys, one of whom told her that "you are really stupid if you think a girl can be elected president".
She has often told the story of being inspired by U.S. efforts during the Space Race and sending a letter to NASA around 1961 asking what she could do to become an astronaut, only to be informed that women were not being accepted into the program.
Clinton canceled his original summer plans and moved to live with her in California;[57] the couple continued living together in New Haven when they returned to law school.
By then, Rodham was viewed as someone with a bright political future.
She was considered a rigorous teacher who was tough with her grades.
Rodham still harbored doubts about getting married; she was concerned that her separate identity would be lost, and that her accomplishments would be viewed in light of someone else
A story about the marriage in the Arkansas Gazette indicated that she decided to retain the name Hillary Rodham. Her motivation was threefold. She wanted to keep the couple's professional lives separate, avoid apparent conflicts of interest, and as she told a friend at the time, "it showed that I was still me." The decision upset both mothers, who were more traditional.
From 1978 until they entered the White House, she had a higher salary than her husband.
A lot of these items have long-term encyclopedic content as they relate to the personality and gender issues of the first woman running for president on behalf of one of the two major parties, and arguably the most storied career of a female politician in the United States. It should not be demoted to a fork. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I actually agree with you that it's not a big deal if such things remain in the article despite not being widely reported. However, where I disagree with you is when you cut major stories out of your "storied" politician's page. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c03:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Listening to the comments above, especially those about "personal life", I've added the Politico source back, along with NY Times & BBC reporting on HRC's involvement in Haiti, replacing in the process comments about Chelsea's wedding bizarrely placed in a section on the first half of HRC's tenure at State. I hope that this paragraph will not be deleted as well. I hope that I have managed to convince Snoogans that there is nothing to fear in simply presenting widely reported information neutrally.
Looking at Bill Clinton's page, I realize how silly the "honeymoon" matter would look in that entry, because it summarizes his wedding and the birth of Chelsea in two short sentences. It is notable how much time is spent dwelling on their marriage on this page. I do believe I was led to add the bit about the honeymoon specifically because of the loquacious presentation here. I know that researchers have noticed how much more time is spent on women's marriages and children in their en.wp BLPs. I guess this entry is a good example of that bias. I much prefer the addition as it stands now. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c11:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
This article is misleading by saying that President Trump won in the electoral college, but Hillary won the popular vote. We do not vote for President as an entire nation, but instead by individual states, so adding the total number of votes from all 50 states has no bearing in determining the outcome of the election. A candidate has to win the popular vote in an individual state in order to receive the vote from the party's electors. Ramblinrex1 (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
It's misleading because talking about "winning the popular vote" is a meaningless, inaccurate, irrelevant phrase. A presidential candidate wins or loses by the Electoral College, period. There is no other "winning" or "losing". We've been hearing Leftists/Dems whine endlessly about the "popular" vote because they want to imply HRC was "the rightful winner" and somehow was robbed of the election which is utter nonsense. The EC was established to negate a popular vote.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Is it a fact that Clinton won the popular vote? yes. Is it a widely reported fact in every corner of the press? yes. Is it your (and very few others) opinion that this is an irrelevant claim? yes. —MelbourneStar☆talk07:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like you don't object to the content (which easily passes WP:DUE) but object to the word "win" in the context of popular vote. That's the word most commonly used in reliable sources, so it's the word we use. It is not for us to second-guess RS on such things. I'm tempted to ask what word you would prefer, but I don't want to give the impression that it matters for our purposes. ―Mandruss☎07:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Inaccurate statement in edit history
In the edit history, I made an incorrect assertion about another's edits. I claimed that an editor removed material and references (see this diff - [13]). This is incorrect. The editor only removed a small of amount of text and did not remove any references. I was confused by three edits in a row, where it appeared to me that text and references had been removed. I apologize for saying references were removed. At the same time, I think it was appropriate to restore the removed text because no rationale was given for its removal. Thanks. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 07:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2019
This edit request to Hillary Clinton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add {{flowlist}} for items following "all belonging to the United Methodist Church" in Religious views section so that they move from image that is to the left.
Replace:
"* First United Methodist Church of [[Park Ridge, Illinois]] – in her early life," with "{{Flowlist|* First United Methodist Church of [[Park Ridge, Illinois]] – in her early life,"
"* Metropolitan Community United Methodist Church in [[New York City|New York, New York]] – currently a congregant." with "* Metropolitan Community United Methodist Church in [[New York City|New York, New York]] – currently a congregant.}}" --5.43.99.155 (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
This reads poorly
"She was the first woman to win the popular vote in an American presidential election and is the only former U.S. first lady to have done so."
Since she is the first (and only) woman to win the popular vote, it should be obvious she is the only former first lady to do so. 2600:1700:1111:5940:1463:5E3A:6CC9:8F11 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
No brief mention of her 2002 Iraq War resolution vote in the lead
There's mention of advocating for 911 responder medical benefits, yet her Iraq War vote helped enable a military intervention that had 100,000's of Iraqi casualties and more American casualties than on 911. It is also a reason Obama won the 2008 democratic nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vctrbarbieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Response: the above is partisan nonsense. The Iraq War vote received 77 votes in the Senate and HRC voting for it isn't particularly noteworthy - especially in light of the administration having lied to the Congress. You're clearly just trying to make her look bad because you hate her - if that weren't the case, I'd expect you to have gone through the pages for the other 76 Senators who voted for the bill and added similar comments to their Talk pages, which I suspect you haven't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.189.221 (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
ITN history
Ravenpuff, your edit summary to remove the ITN template describes your judgement that this was an "erroneous ITN appearance". This ITN mention shows her name unbolded. I presume it is an erroneous credit because she is not the bolded subject. Is this the reason for your removal?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that's correct. Only bolded articles are considered as being "featured" on the Main Page, which this article wasn't. — RAVENPVFF·talk·00:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
The second sentence of the first paragraph should be edited to lead with her highest/most recent office:
"She served as the 67th United States Secretary of State from 2009 until 2013, United States Senator from New York from 2001 to 2009, and First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001." (Capitalization added for consistency)
quibble about the modern Canadian flags in the ancestry section.
Mary Anne Frances McDougall and Daniel Murray should probably have the Ensign Flag as Emma Josephine Monk does . Geo8rge (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Bibliography section
I changed the "Bibliography" section to a subsection of "References" and changed the name to "References cited" per MOS:NOTES: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications"). This is a minor correction but is in line with the MOS and does remove confusion. Otr500 (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I saw an admin reverted my thing about the popular vote and Obama rounded. It says that I need to discuss on the talk page before acting. So I'm doing this in part because of that. Can I readd that sentence the morning after tomorrow morning? Bernspeed (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. You need to discuss this. As in, explain why it should be included (is it salient or is it just another "fact" - not every fact can be included in an article), provide a reliable source, etc. --regentspark (comment) 23:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Page Image Change
I thought the page would be best if Hillary Clinton's top image was her Secretary of State portrait.
You need to discuss and gain a consensus. Simply starting a talk page discussion does not permit you to change photos without gaining a consensus. Why do you think it should be changed? You liking it is not a valid reason. See the discussion below if you want to participate constructively. For now, your change has been reverted and I've started a discussion about this at WP:ANI since you're continuing with this pattern of disruptive behavior despite many, many warnings. — Tartan357(Talk)00:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems to have been unclear for the last few months: Which picture should be used in the infobox? The official portrait from when she was secretary of state, or the more recent shot from the campaign trail? Does Wikipedia policy and tradition say that it should be the secretary of state one because that is the title below the picture? Or should the more recent, more attractive one be used? The same debate seems to be needed at 2016 United States presidential election. @Browniesandicecreamcake, General Ization, Tartan357, and Muboshgu: Pinging recent editors of the image. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia practice is generally to use a photo from the most prominent part of someone's life on their biography page. I believe there was a discussion at some point that established a consensus that she was most important as the Democratic nominee, and that the 2016 picture should be used. For those reasons, I agree with using the 2016 picture. The 2016 picture should definitely be used on the election page since it's a picture from the campaign. — Tartan357(Talk)18:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Tartan357's assessment. During the 2016 election, a number of editors argued to keep the 2009 picture, saying that it was the period of her greatest notability. But I don't see that argument as having any validity. TFD (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Note:Browniesandicecreamcake has a history of changing this and other infobox photos of prominent US politicians. I just reverted it back to the 2016 one. They self-reverted and MelanieN appears to have inadvertently reverted the self-revert. Browniesandicecreamcake has been warned about this so many times that I'm going to take them to WP:ANI. — Tartan357(Talk)00:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
To provide a bit of friendly dissent, I think the most recent portrait should be used in the infobox. For U.S. Senators or Representatives who are re-elected, their old government portraits are swapped out for updated ones every few terms. If this were not done, poor 87-year-old Don Young's page would still have his 1973 House portrait. This may be WP:OTHERSTUFF reasoning, but I think the precedent is pertinent here. KidAd (💬💬) 00:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a rare case of a politician's most influential political office (Secretary of State) not coinciding with the most important part of their life (being the Democratic nominee). — Tartan357(Talk)00:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I guess it isn't exactly dissent, but agreement for different reasons. Regardless of how important HRC was when the 2016 image was taken, I think it should be policy to use the most up-to-date photo available for politicians. KidAd (💬💬) 01:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
In this case, I say 2016. I get the impulse to want to use the official portrait, but it's 12 years old now. The 2016 photo is much more current. Now, when a subject is deceased, I think we'd be better off using an earlier photo that is more representative of the subject's entire life/career. (Interestingly though I see we're still using the 1993 portrait of her husband in his infobox.) – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with using the 2016 picture - her role as the first female nominee of a major political party - who won the popular vote by the way - is arguably her crowning achievement, more than Secretary of State, Senator, First Lady or other positions from her quite varied career. Tvoz/talk00:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020
This edit request to Hillary Clinton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section on her comments on Trump, 'despite winning the election' should be changed to 'despite winning the Electoral College' for clarity; it can be argued that either of them won the electiom as she reieved more votes. Changing to 'Electoral College' removed the ambigiuty. TheJamesifer (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Not done. That sentence doesn't appear in the article. I think I see what you're referring to, but in either case, there's only one plain meaning of "winning the election", despite the oddities of how an ultimate winner is determined. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2020
This edit request to Hillary Clinton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to Hillary Clinton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "In January 2011, Clinton traveled to Haiti in order to help pave the way for the election of Michel Martelly." to "In January 2011, Clinton traveled to Haiti in order to pressure the president of Haiti into complying with international intervention in Haitian elections, a US-funded mission[2] which was later found to produce inaccurate election results.[3]"
[1]: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/0131/Hillary-Clinton-presses-Haiti-s-Rene-Preval-to-break-election-stalemate
[2]: https://haitiliberte.com/how-the-oas-has-subverted-elections-in-bolivia-and-haiti/
[3]: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/haitis-rigged-election/
(The original phrasing is problematic because it frames the visit as typical courteous diplomacy, while the PM at the time has been quoted as saying, "We tried to resist and did, until the visit of Hillary Clinton. That was when Préval understood he had no way out and accepted." In fact, she and her department played a significant role in forcing intervention that turned out to be based on inaccurate readings, arguably delegitimizing the results.)
Also, change "In July 2010, she visited South Korea, where she and Cheryl Mills worked to convince SAE-A, a large apparel subcontractor, to invest in Haiti despite the company's deep concerns about plans to raise the minimum wage." to "In July 2010, she visited South Korea, where she and Cheryl Mills worked to convince SAE-A, a large apparel subcontractor, to invest in Haiti. The company held deep concerns about plans to raise the minimum wage, though Clinton's State Department previously worked closely with other companies and the government itself to urge against raising the minimum wage by 37 cents.[1]"
[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-haiti-us-pushed-to-lower-minimum-wage/
(Again, the original article makes mention of this subject in a detached manner. The fact she oversaw the subversion of that very law should be included, as it emphasizes her role.) Fuwafuwano (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Clinton's predatory relationship with Haiti during her position as Secretary of State is misrepresented as helpful.
This edit request to Hillary Clinton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Request 1: change "In January 2011, Clinton traveled to Haiti in order to help pave the way for the election of Michel Martelly." to "In January 2011, Clinton traveled to Haiti in order to pressure the president of Haiti into complying with OAS-led international intervention in Haitian elections.[1] CEPR found that the intervention, a mission to recalculate vote counts[2], contradicted actual polling results (which would have eliminated the candidate who won the presidency) and was suggestive of bias within OAS[3].
Request 2: change "In July 2010, she visited South Korea, where she and Cheryl Mills worked to convince SAE-A, a large apparel subcontractor, to invest in Haiti despite the company's deep concerns about plans to raise the minimum wage." to "In July 2010, she visited South Korea, where she and Cheryl Mills worked to convince SAE-A, a large apparel subcontractor, to invest in Haiti. The company held deep concerns about plans to raise the minimum wage, though Clinton's State Department previously urged the Haitian president against raising the minimum wage[1] by 37[2] cents, so as to assist sweatshop owners.[3]”
[1]https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Haitians-Workers-Fight-for-Higher-Minimum-Wage-Suppressed-by-Clintons-State-Department-20170522-0037.html
[2]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-haiti-us-pushed-to-lower-minimum-wage/
[3]https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day/
(I added two, lengthier sources that eliminate the possibility of original research on my part. My paraphrasing is supported by the following sentences:
"To resolve the impasse between the factory owners and Parliament, the State Department urged quick intervention by then Haitian President René Préval.”
Said factory owners "refused to pay 62 cents per hour, or $5 per day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian Parliament in June 2009 would have mandated.”
"According to memos obtained by Wikileaks in 2008 and 2009, the U.S. State Department blocked a proposal to increase the minimum wage in Haiti.”
"The U.S. State Department subsequently brought pressure to bear on Haiti's president,”
"...American clothing makers with factories in Haiti were displeased after the government raised the minimum wage more than two and a half times the previous minimum 24 cents an hour.”
"The Nation published a scoop - momentarily - on its website about Wikileaks cables revealing pressure from Washington on Haiti's government not to raise the national minimum wage to 61 cents an hour.") Fuwafuwano (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hold off until NY state results are certified, but we will probably be adding this page to "Category:2020 United States presidential electors"
Hold off until NY state results are certified, but we will probably be adding this page to "Category:2020 United States presidential electors". This category, not yet existing, will be created once electors are formally assigned following the certification of state results. Clinton, on the nominated slate of Dem electors for New York state, will apparently be serving as an elector, as dems are reported to have carried NY state in the presidential race. However, results are not yet certified, and until they are, she is not yet an elector. SecretName101 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020
This edit request to Hillary Clinton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add the following navboxes to the foot of the article, consistent with other major party nominees for Presidents, Senators, and Cabinet members (see Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry for just a few such examples of articles with navboxes.
.jpg)
Done with minor coding differences.[14] Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
. Geo8rge (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Not done. That sentence doesn't appear in the article. I think I see what you're referring to, but in either case, there's only one plain meaning of "winning the election", despite the oddities of how an ultimate winner is determined. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}