Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

What the hell?

All's well that ends well. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Where is the consensus in the discussion above? I sure as hell don't see it, and it certainly isn't so crystal-clear or WP:SNOW in the slightest so a NON-admin has the gall to close it himself. This is some serious BS right here. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree with Tarc. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Strongly agree. A move can only be done if there is some measure of consensus. There is none. This is utterly bogus. Omnedon (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm uninvolved with this discussion and have no real opinion on the move. The discussion close, however, is utterly inappropriate for an NAC. There is no consensus in the discussion so the close is a WP:SUPERVOTE. Revert. Begoon talk 02:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Strongly agree. Note too that (per noconsensus): "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." Has the HRC title been stable? Yes. Is there consensus on the move? I see nothing even close to it. This needs to be speedily reverted. ╠╣uw [talk] 02:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice. There wasn't even a hint of consensus supporting the move. Wildly inappropriate closure. user:j (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I maintain, despite some others disagreeing, that as a general principle, a NAC closure is revertable by any admin to substitute their own close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That was the epitome of an ill-informed discussion close, now undone. Looks like we're good here. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope - we're not good. ObiWan harrangued Good OlFactory into reverting the reversion. Now what? This was an OBVIOUSLY unsuitable discussion for a non-admin to close, much less to insist on their correctness when overturned by an admin. What happens next? --MelanieN (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Facepalm. I supported the move, but there's no way this should've been closed by a non-admin. Calidum Sistere 05:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • And now Obi-wan harassed and badgered the admin into restoring his half-assed supervote of a close. Unfortuately I'm off for the night, perhaps this will be cleared up in the wee hours, otherwise it will be a fireworks-filled morning. Tarc (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • And still Obi-wan insists on his talk page that there was "rough consensus"... What actually happened was that one editor made a supervote, how ever many times he claims it was not. There may have been rough consensus on certain specific aspects of the situation, but none whatsoever on the move itself. Omnedon (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey everyone—I would encourage us all to continue to assume good faith on behalf of all other users. You may not agree with what Obiwan has done or what I have done at various stages, but I don't feel that Obiwan "harrangued", "harassed", or "badgered" me. We had a relatively pleasant discussion about it and exchanged our views. To be able to do that on WP is refreshing and I think it's a big part of what WP should strive to be. I reversed my reversal as an act of good faith after our discussion; I did not really change my views on the substance of the matter, but I trust that things can be worked out at "move review". I apologise, though, for the disruption my actions of moving the article twice in a short period of time caused. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I do believe both of you acted in good faith. It is just difficult to see how Obi-wan could have been unaware that this reaction would occur. And both your actions and his have been rather disruptive, though I don't believe that was the intent. Omnedon (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Although I myself used it in referring to my own actions, it may be best for us to use a word other than "disruptive", since often on WP that implies bad faith in some respect. The goings-on have been—"turbulent"—how's that? :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I've raised the closure at this move review. (I managed to break the move review template above the closed discussion higher up on this page, so if anyone is better caffeinated that I currently am, I would appreciate if you could figure out what the hell I managed to do there. I've MacGyvered it by subst'ing and manually fixing the link, but I imagine that's not ideal.) user:j (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • STRONG OBJECTION-absolutely no consensus for this move and I strongly object to it. This is wholly inappropriate. Tvoz/talk 16:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move review

For those who may have missed it, the recent move from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton is now at move review. Please join the discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I voted to move this article to Hillary Clinton in the previous discussion, and I proposed relisting the proposal in the move review, I think we should take a breather before going at it again. Let's take a month, and then have a well-organized discussion, and see if we can't reach a clear consensus based on policy and sound reasoning. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
A month!? How about a year, or even better a decade ... There was nothing wrong with this discussion here (just the close); both sides made their arguments well. There was nothing wrong with the discussion before that, or the one before that, or the ones before that. Every result has either been opposition to a move or no consensus for a move. Why doesn't everyone do something else that is actually beneficial to WP, instead of going around in circles on this again and again. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC) 👍 Tvoz
I'd say more like 6 months to 1 year minimum, honestly. People can't just hammer away the same proposal over and over and over til they get the result they want. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I would recommend waiting until something has materially changed. Apteva (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
If the discussion had ended with a consensus decision one way or the other (as the closer and I think it did, in favor of moving) that would be one thing. But given the revert of that close based on the finding that there was no consensus, one of the primary ways we develop consensus on WP is through discussion[1]. It makes no sense to squelch that process.

Besides, I've asked the admin who closed the move review to explain how he determined that there was no clear consensus for the move above, which he did not explain at all, especially in light of how clearly the finding of consensus was explained in the move close. It sure looks like he just counted !votes. If so, that's grounds for appealing the move review revert. See User talk:Amatulic#Hillary Clinton. --B2C 03:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh for christ's sake put a sock in it already and come to the realization that there isn't support for your position of the matter at hand here. Deal with that, accept, that an find something better o do. You and that Obiwan character...thankfully departed from the project...have done far more harm than good in both this are and in Sarah Brown's rename discussion. I'd cheerfully see to it that both of you were banned from any future women-related naming topics, given the opportunity. Tarc (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
My concern is that some criticism of the move closure seems to have hinged on the identity and personality of the closer, and of editors involved in the discussion. The fact that there was in the end no consensus even as to whether the close was done properly suggests that this issue is one that should be made with the input of a community more broadly informed of the existence of the dispute. If a discussion is initiated with the community generally being informed well in advance and having a well-defined window of time in which to respond, then the outcome of that discussion (whether it is for or against a consensus to move) can not reasonably be questioned on procedural grounds, and can not reasonably be raised again in six months or a year (or maybe ten, absent the sort of material change that Apteva suggests). bd2412 T 04:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It's worse than that. Failing to find consensus to Overturn in the Move Review discussion, there was no authority to Overturn this move decision. The only legitimate options were "no action" or "relist". This Overturn was out of line. --B2C 04:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I look forward to the move review of the move review of the (reversed then counter-reversed) move. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
That might be funny if it hadn't actually been suggested. This is taking absurd to a whole new level. Can we please move on? Tvoz/talk 06:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes please. For the record, a move review is the end of the line for that move request. Once it is upheld, reversed or relisted, there is no review of that, short of badgering the closer, which I do not recommend. For now the ball is in Ms. Rodham's court, I would say. Half a dozen RM's in as many years is too many. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Indeed. Enough with the attempts at flooding administrators with endless walls of text until they give up and comply. The move review was properly closed. Enough with the disruption (which I strongly believe is motivated more by the pointed effort of ensuring this article can be used as a "yogurt rule" example than anything else at this point). user:j (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Either way, the WP:Yogurt Rule will probably be supported. As long as HRC remains as the title, the controversy will continue (no, not by me), as WP:YR predicts, because there is another title that meets policy better (more commonly used in RS, more concise).

Anyway, any such unilateral admin decision is subject to questioning per WP:ADMINACCT, and this one was blatantly improper. See User_talk:Amatulic#Improper_Move_Review_decision.3F. --B2C 17:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea that the other title "meets policy better" is your opinion. Some disagree. Omnedon (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has argued that HRC meets policy better than, or even just as well as, HC, and explained how and why, I missed it. Can you show me where that is, please? I'll retract my statement and apologize if that has occurred. Thanks! --B2C 18:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not about to reopen that whole argument yet again. It's been gone into quite enough. I am saying that your statement is an opinion -- that not everyone agrees that HC fits policy better than HRC. Omnedon (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The statement that HC fits policy better than HRC is an opinion, but it has basis, explained by many, but especially by Obi-Wan, in great detail, in his closing. Others may not agree with the statement, sure, but does their opinion have basis? Without basis that is presented and explained, we're talking JDLI opinion that is supposed to be dismissed in determining consensus per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Consensus. Giving undue weight to baseless opinions like that is why these disagreements don't get resolved. I'm not asking you to reopen anything - just to point me to where basis for "HRC meets policy better than HC" was presented, if it was. --B2C 18:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The opinion that HRC is better than HC is baseless? Once again you are dismissive of the opposition, as is your wont. The discussion was lengthy, you were involved, it was all presented and explained, and it's there for you to review if you wish. There was no consensus that HC somehow satisfied policy better than HRC -- and here we are. Please move on. Omnedon (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Not merely "better" (which is purely subjective JDLI), but meets policy better (which requires basis amenable to analysis and evaluation). I'm not aware of any basis for the opinion that HRC meets policy better than HC, because I have not seen any such basis presented (and I can't think of any on my own). I have not even seen the statement asserted, not by you, nor anyone else. Again, I might have missed something, which is why I'm asking you to point it out. If you don't want to or can't, I understand. But then don't object to my statement that HC meets policy better than HRC.

I've reviewed the discussion twice and simply don't see it. What I have seen are arguments that HRC is commonly used (undisputed and irrelevant), and statements of opinion that it is preferred (JDLI). There is your dismissal of the HC is more concise argument based on an interpretation of concision that is significantly different from that stated at WP:CRITERIA ("The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." - HC undeniably meets that, and HRC is undeniably even longer). But no assertions that HRC meets policy better than HC, much less explanations of how it does. So, yeah, there apparently is no basis for the statement that HRC meets policy better than HC.

And I'm not the only one. This is basically what Obi Wan uncovered when he reviewed the discussion, and explained in great detail. --B2C 20:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, that is your opinion. As I stated, not everyone agrees on your interpretation of policy. Hence the lengthy discussion. Omnedon (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
A quote of the exact words stated in the policy is not an interpretation. Are you denying that HC meets "no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects"? Are you saying it's longer, or not long enough "to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects"? Are you denying that HRC is longer? These are not matters of opinion. These are pretty obvious facts.

It's my opinion that no basis was given for arguing that HRC meets policy better than HC. It's your opinion that it was. Neither opinion matters precisely because they're just opinions. But, the fact is I've cited Obi's explanation as basis for the argument that HC meets policy better than HRC. Another fact is that you have cited nothing besides a vague reference to the "long discussion" as basis for the argument that HRC meets policy better than HC. Those are facts, and facts matter. --B2C 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

So then you do indeed wish to continue to debate this, and re-open the discussion. I'm not doing that. Claiming that your arguments, or Obiwan's, are strongest doesn't make it so. In any case, Obiwan wasn't here to make arguments, but to evaluate, and his conclusion was not upheld. The move has been discussed. The close has been discussed. We have a result. Please move on. Omnedon (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You started to debate me, by challenging a statement I made. I've engaged in that debate. My claim is that a statement with basis is stronger than one without that; that's not a matter of opinion. I don't want to re-open the discussion; I was just summarizing what I saw in reviewing the discussion while fruitlessly looking for basis for your assertion. --B2C 00:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I simply asserted that your statement was an opinion and that some disagreed with you. Please assume good faith from your fellow editors. Omnedon (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Move review discussion

(The following was started on my talk page. I have moved it here. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC))

The key statement in your close of the move review is this:

However, there was no clear consensus for the previous move, ...

You provided no basis whatsoever for this declaration.

So, we have no idea how you concluded that there was "no clear consensus". You may have counted votes, you may have evaluated arguments, you may have contemplated your belly button to reach this conclusion. We don't know.

This is ironically in stark contrast to the close decision that you reviewed, which included a clear and detailed explanation of how "a clear consensus-based and policy-based result" was originally found.

I, for one, would appreciate some explanation as to how you arrived at this opinion, whether you provide it here, at the move review, or at the original Hillary Clinton talk page is fine with me. In particular, I'd like to know what was it about Obi's explanation that you find lacking. I ask this because it was the most thoroughly explained close I've ever seen, which begs the question: if that's not good enough, what is? Thank you. --B2C 02:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC) added last two sentences. --B2C 02:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The ongoing effort to harangue anyone who disagrees until they simply cave needs to stop. The ratio of those who agreed there was no consensus from the original discussion was nearly 2:1 in the move review. It was even greater amongst those who were not involved in the original discussion. Enough. user:j (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Communicating about their actions is a key aspect of adminiship. Asking an admins questions about their actions is not haranguing. See WP:ADMINACCT.

So it is about counting !votes? I mean, that's sure how it looks, and J's assessment supports this explanation. What gets me is that everything we write, everything, says the opposite. Actually writing in policy that it's appropriate to decide consensus by counting !votes would never achieve consensus support no matter how you determine it. Yet here we have a respected and experienced admin apparently not only doing exactly that, but reverting the actions of an editor who was as much by the [policy] book as I've ever seen anyone do an RM close.

The difference between how we describe consensus is determined in writing and how it's often actually determined is quite the chasm. --B2C 03:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC) updates --B2C 03:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Amatulic, for the love of god, buddha, and the flying spaghetti monster don't let the same bullshit happen here that they did to the admins who closed the Clinton (overturned Obiwankeobi in that case) and Sarah Brown move discussions respectively. Please. These antagonists need to learn to drop the stick and walk away from a debate that did not go the way they wanted it to. Tarc (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
+1 - Good grief, I only just saw all this. Just want to strongly endorse Tarc's point above. I have nothing to add to it, really, save that endorsement. Begoon talk 03:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Improper Move Review decision?

I just reviewed the instructions at Wikipedia:Move_review#Closing_reviews and realized your close appears to be inappropriate. They state:

A nominated page should remain on Move Review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the administrator should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; administrators may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the closing administrator thinks that a different consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Below those instructions is a section with a table which describes the results of each of the MRV closes, depending on what the original decision was.

This indicates there are 4 choices for Move Review decisions: Endorse Close, Overturn Close, Relist, Don't Relist. Your decision was none of those. It was Moved to Hillary Rodham Clinton. This in and of itself is a highly irregular and inappropriate Move Review close.

In particular, in your comments you noted there was no clear consensus in the Move Review discussion. In that case the instructions are clear:

If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; administrators may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

So, you were supposed to use your discretion to decide between "no action" and "relist". But you did neither. Instead, you went beyond the parameters normally allowed to an administrator and Overturned the close despite the admitted lack of consensus to do so.

This needs explaining too.

I'll just add that these processes were developed for good reasons and without this article in mind. Following procedures in such cases is imperative to maintaining integrity in our consensus finding mechanisms. I presume this was an inadvertent error on your part that can be easily rectified. Thank you. --B2C 04:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

In short, the job of the admin who closes a move review is not to evaluate the original move discussion, but to evaluate the move review discussion. If that evaluation finds consensus to overturn, then that overturns the original decision. But finding no consensus in the move review discussion does not give the admin the right to Overturn not only the original move decision, but also the lack of community consensus about the integrity of that decision. This is why your only options are to "no action" or "relist". --B2C 04:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, the overwhelming majority of those commenting at the move review agreed that there was no consensus at the original discussion and, as a result, the original move closure was in error. Move on. user:j (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Even if counting !votes was how consensus was determined (and it's not), 20 to 15 is hardly an "overwhelming majority". Amatulic correctly and explicitly recognized there was no consensus in the move review discussion.

Besides, what was at issue at the move review was not the unsubstantiated opinions of each contributor about whether there was consensus at the original move discussion, but their analysis about whether or not the explanation of the closer of that move was reasonable, within his discretion, etc. Almost none of the comments favoring Overturn even addressed the closer's explanation and arguments, or even gave an indication that they even bothered reading it. This is the main guideline about move review discussions (from Wikipedia:Move_review#Commenting_in_a_move_review):

"Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within administrator discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal."
There is almost none of that in the Overturn commentary, and those comments which amounted to JDLI revote of the original move discussion should have been dismissed accordingly in the evaluation of the move review discussion.

This type of close that ignores policy and procedures, including how we determine consensus, by inappropriately deciding "no consensus" essentially based on counting !votes, is why so many of these issues remain unnecessarily unresolved, sometimes for years and years. --B2C 16:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your wikilawyering of this is unnecessary. It was not fifteen for endorse compared to twenty to overturn, as you imply. It was thirteen to endorse, two to relist, and twenty to overturn. Among uninvolved editors, it fell to five to endorse compared to thirteen to overturn. Despite your wp:ididnthearthat efforts to ignore the significant arguments made by those who believed the original close was blatantly in error, there was a clear and compelling consensus both in quantity and quality, which User:Amatulic correctly assessed to close the discussion. I realize this outcome does significant damage to your pointed "rule," but your disruption of the move process in this case (continuing even now) is one of the reasons that nonsense essay should be deleted post-haste. I'm not engaging with you any further on this at this point, and as you were previously advised, I'd suggest you consider stepping back and determining whether your efforts here fall on the side of productive or disruptive. user:j (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for having to be away from my computer since closing the Move Review yesterday. I have provided a more detailed explanation of my closing decision at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 June#Hillary Clinton (closed). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the additional detail, but you have still not explained your "no consensus" finding on the question of what should the article be called (your Point 2, on which you relied heavily in Point 3 to find consensus to overturn the previous close). I mean, simply stating your opinion that "there were good arguments on both sides", without at least summarizing what you thought those arguments were and how you apparently weighted them approximately equally, especially in light of the detailed analysis provided by Obi Wan previously in that regard (which was essentially ignored by those arguing "no consensus"), is not explaining much. Since I'm the only one who seems to care, I'm going to drop this, but, FWIW, to see such a remarkable and thorough decision overturned by, well, much less than that, is very disappointing. --B2C 23:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I did not see it necessary for me to elaborate further on point 2 because that would put me in the position of evaluating a RM debate rather than evaluating a review of an RM debate. If it matters, my own bias is for "Hillary Clinton" to be the title, so I would naturally find arguments in favor of that point of view more persuasive. However, I could not deny that I saw a fairly overwhelming consensus to overturn. and the arguments endorsing the close failed to convince me that the prior close was completely free of supervote taint. This discussion suffered from a sampling bias and required participation from more editors to get a statistically meaningful consensus. I apologize for the confusing way I presented the decision initially. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason that everyone has to use the exact same verbiage every close. The close chosen was "overturn" with the effect that the page was "moved". They are one and the same, although for the purpose of putting things into tidy little boxes, the word overturn is better. One of my closes (with a string of maybe 20 opposes or supports, but all only the same) was "guess". Apteva (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I just want to state how WP:LAME this dispute is, and to recommend trouting everyone who wasted valuable time arguing such a meaningless dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

All of this will be a moot point if we just start a new move discussion that is very well publicized and conducted in an orderly fashion, with ground rules clearly set out in advance as to how evidence for either position is to be presented, when the discussion will begin and end, and how opinions are to be tallied. I would propose that for such a discussion, we recruit a neutral and uninvolved admin (or better yet, a panel of three) willing to oversee the discussion, keep it on topic, focused, and civil, and close it appropriately. bd2412 T 02:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree with your premise. There was nothing wrong with this last discussion, or the one before that, or the one before that, or the one before that, or the one before that. There were plenty of participants and the discussions were held civilly and the evidence presented (or re-presented, since the same arguments and points keep getting repeated). All of them ended up with the same result – the article was not moved. There is nothing to be gained in repeating this exercise yet again. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, in the interests of avoiding any appearance of an outcome decided by procedural missteps, I am going to initiate a move request in accordance with the principles that I have outlined above. I believe that two weeks is enough time to broadly publicize the discussion, recruit the admins to oversee it, and hammer out any procedural issues likely to arise during the discussion. Unless there is a reasonable argument that more time is needed to carry out these steps prior to the initiation of this move request, I will file it at around 00:00 15 August 2013 (UTC), give or take an hour. I propose to begin by having a 24-hour period for any interested editors to present evidence for either position prior to any !votes being taken, followed by a ten-day period for opinions to be presented, with the discussion to be closed and the outcome determined at around 00:00 26 August 2013 (UTC). I expect that any procedural objections to the initiation of this discussion will be resolved before the 15th. I would respectfully request that no move requests be filed with respect to this article prior to the one which I now propose to file. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • We are not holding another rename request so soon after the last one. This is bordering on disruption, and I will gleefully see to it that such disruptors are dragged before WP:ANI or elsewhere to discuss topic bans as appropriate. Editors that came out on the losing side of the last discussion simply need to build a bridge and get over it. Tarc (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    Your concern is noted. Please feel free to take whatever procedural steps you believe to be necessary. As I have already stated my resolve to file this move request on August 15th, unless you are objecting to ask for a few more days, I expect that the steps you propose will be initiated in time to be effectively resolved by the proposed filing date. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    None of the many past discussions have resulted in a consensus for a move, and simply continuing to bring up the issue without any significant change in the circumstances is disruptive. user:j (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    There have been hundreds of news headlines and probably hundreds of thousands of forum posts and blog posts regarding this subject just in the past month. I have no doubt that I will be able to provide significant new evidence that has not been presented in any prior discussion. For example, there have been a number of "name recognition" polls conducted by respected polling firms in that time (and, in fact, over the past several years). It should be trivial to determine from the aggregate of those polls whether "Hillary Clinton" is the more readily recognized name among the options for this article title. bd2412 T 11:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's too soon. I for one do not wish to go through all of this again, and I'm clearly not the only one. I would point out, too, that recognizability is just one criterion of many; and experience tells me it will be anything but "trivial". Give it some time, please. Omnedon (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    I really don't car what new evidence you think you have, and I suspect there are many here of a similar mind; it is irrelevant. This project works by consensus, and after repeated (and repeated and repeated) discussions, there is simply no consensus to rename this article. Repeated nominations are considered disruptive, just as repeated AfDs can be seen as disruptive. So, go find something better to work on, for our sake and for your own. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The closing administrator for the move review, Amatulić, made a specific finding on this issue on June 28:
Relative to the closure of that discussion, this is not "right now", the proposed start date of the new process will be over a month and a half later than the final resolution of the previous process. This is an administrator determination of community consensus that, yes, the RM should be relisted. I, as a member of this community, am certainly entitled to abide by this already-determined consensus. As I have said, absent argument for the need to permit a few more days or weeks to iron out procedural details, I am filing this move request at 00:00 15 August 2013 (UTC). I intend to begin publicizing this initiative sometime next week, and to begin recruiting a panel of uninvolved admins to monitor the proceedings within the next few days. Since I have stated my intention clearly, now would be the time to take any procedural steps necessary to establish the propriety of my planned move request. bd2412 T 12:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Not right now. You have not shown any good reasons to do this again so soon. You claim new evidence, but that is only a claim. This is disruptive. Omnedon (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. This is procedurally correct. bd2412 T 13:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
If quotations of my words are to be used as a rationale for anything, perhaps I should be asked for clarification before assuming that this decision is in agreement with my close of the past discussion. "Not right now" wasn't intended to mean "6 weeks later". The idea was to wait several months, in accordance with comments in that discussion, perhaps even until after the 2016 election campaign gets well underway and dominates the news. Another renaming discussion so soon is disruptive to the community. WP:POINT applies here, so please don't go there. "Not right now." ~Amatulić (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Your point is taken. I will withdraw my proposal at this time, and wait a few more months, most likely until October-November. Judging by the news reports, the 2016 election campaign is "underway". I would like to make clear that I do not intend to file a move request to make any kind of point, but because I believe that a full airing of the evidence, including evidence that has not previously been considered in these proceedings, will yield a consensus that the more concise title is the proper title for this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. I am sure many others will be relieved by the respite. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Amatulić, for stepping in. Even a year is too soon - we've been over this ground too many times and it is not a good use of resources and energies. Tvoz/talk 17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
A year might be too soon following a move discussion with an uncontested closing. The last of those concluded on 20 November 2012. Having reviewed the previous move requests, I am frankly stunned by the absence of any discussion of public polling, and of the results of polls where a statistical sampling of respondents is asked, for example, to "name likely candidates". The raw data from such polls should be obtainable, and should clearly indicate as a matter of straightforward statistical analysis what the common name of this subject is in the understanding of the encyclopedia-using public. bd2412 T 18:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You are "stunned"? I'm not sure that public polling is a basis on which we should make these decisions. Perhaps it could have a role, but as I mentioned before, recognizability is just one of several criteria that are considered when naming articles. Omnedon (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Public polling has no place in this discussion; we go by reliable sources in this project, not mob rules and opinion polls. Are you sure you're here for the right reasons? Tarc (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with Tarc. Public polling would be the WORST possible basis for an article title. The nutshell at WP:AT is that the title should be based on reliable English language sources. Shall we instead start basing encyclopedia articles on a Family Feud type process, where "Survey says..." is the winning answer even if it is factually incorrect? --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Public polling, when people are asked in an open-ended manner to name something, is the single best way to determine what the common name of that thing is. We generally don't use such data because it is generally not available - who is going around asking people what they call their favorite vegetable, and thereby generating data that can be used as a basis to determine what the common name of that vegetable is? Of course, that is hardly the only evidence to consider - there are also newspaper headlines and official correspondence and all sorts of other things - but the community is entitled to have that presented to them, and to consider its import. Having been involved in a large number of requested move discussions, I would certainly consider it to be important information in determining the common name of a subject. Incidentally, we have not actually seen this data yet. I may be wrong, and it may turn out that random survey respondents are more likely to include "Rodham" in identifying this subject, in which case the evidence will change my mind. At the moment, the point is moot, since I do not intend to pursue this further for at least several months, in accordance with Amatulić's clarification of his closure. bd2412 T 19:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You have a misunderstanding of the term WP:COMMONNAME, which is defined here as "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not a moot point. If and when this is reconsidered, public polling could hardly be said to be "the single best way to determine what the common name of that thing is". Omnedon (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
If and when this is reconsidered, it will be up to the community to decide the weight to be given to public polling, to the phrasing that pollsters use (many pollsters themselves being reliable sources), and general usage in newspapers and political documents over time. That's why we have the discussions. bd2412 T 19:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
But you are saying that you have new evidence based on public polling. Yet it is already being rejected conceptually... Omnedon (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we've heard enough from both sides now. This is not a forum, and its also not a place to discuss future move requests which may or may not take place. If a move request happens, you can discuss the quality of sources then - otherwise its just a theoretical argument.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a forum, nor is it being used as one. This is an issue that is being discussed. Omnedon (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
To a degree, the discussion is premature in that I haven't even looked at all the possible evidence yet, and my review of the evidence will change my mind if it points in another direction. I'm not planning on going out and conducting public polls myself; I intend to rely on those collected and presented by reliable sources like Zogby, Gallup, and Quinnipiac. I also intend to make a much more thorough examination of usage in newspapers, books, and magazines, than has been presented in any discussion of this topic. However, this is not a high priority for me, so I don't plan on diving into this for several months to come. bd2412 T 19:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not quite premature, since you billed this as stunning new evidence that justifies bringing this back up. But I suspect it will be more of the same. Open-ended polls will probably list "Hillary" and "Obama" as the most-used names, especially if taken during 2007-2008 when she branded herself as one word during the campaign and much of the discussion followed. (Remarks like "I'm for Hillary but my children are for Obama, it's a generational thing.") But why stop there? Open-ended poll responses would give us lots of new common names and thus article titles. If asked who the president after Reagan was, the first two answers are probably "the first George Bush" or (the incorrect) "George Bush Senior", not George H. W. Bush. If asked to name a famous general who became president, more will name "Eisenhower" or "Ike" or "Dwight Eisenhower" than Dwight D. Eisenhower. If asked to name a royal in the news, the first answers are surely "Prince William" and "Kate" or "Kate Middleton", not Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. If asked to name a major federal law currently coming into effect, at least 90% of the responses will be for "Obamacare", not the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If asked to name an athlete currently under investigation for performance-enhancing drugs, more will name "A-Rod" than Alex Rodriguez. And so on and so on. But of course responses like this are not the be-all and end-all of article naming, as you acknowledge later. There are other considerations, like completeness and correctness and use in the best sources and so on. You acknowledge that this new evidence would have to be discussed in all these contexts. But the evidence isn't really new and the discussions will fall into the established viewpoints of how all the different criteria should be weighed. And five times now that discussion has happened and five times now the article has kept its name. At some point, people have to acknowledge and respect the outcomes of discussions even if they don't agree with them. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that open ended poll results are not an appropriate source to use to determine WP:COMMONNAME. If nothing else, the name people most likely recall and utter is not necessary reflective of recognizability.

That said, I do think better data can be collected on how this person is referred most often in truly reliable sources. --B2C 00:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

When a few more months have passed, I'll conduct a longitudinal regression analysis of the sources over time - including public polling responses, news sources, public documents, and other indicators - and determine whether there is or is not a statistically identifiable trend to present to the community as a basis for renaming. For the time being, however, I am putting this question out of my mind. bd2412 T 01:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision

I'm concerned that this article has been given an amateurish whitewashing treatment. There are five introductory paragraphs, without a single citation between them. The paragraphs are also laden with the use of poorly structured jargon such as "get the message out." Given how controversial Hillary Clinton is as a public figure, it's understandable to expect that criticism of her career is represented in the article. The section of the article detailing Clinton's tenure as First Lady incorporates criticism similarly to other Wikipedia articles. However, the section describing Clinton's years as Secretary of States does not include criticism beyond a summary of the Benghazi event. This is especially surprising considering recent developments in the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Egypt. I'm sure I'm not the only reader who notices this. The article would certainly benefit from a revision of this section, which could provide readers with a more comprehensive representation of Clinton's tenure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.244.10 (talk)

First off, we generally avoid filling the lead of an article with citations, per WP:LEADCITE. The lead should introduce the article in broad terms, with the body of the article reserved for detail and citations to support the detail. Second, if you have a specific suggestion for an addition to the article, then by all means to so. Making vague hand-waves at "it's too liberal, too biased, not critical enough!" sounds like the cranky whinge of far-right-wing agitation rather than serious suggestions. Tarc (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Although I'm plenty familiar with the "cranky whinge of far-right-wing agitation" you're describing, I don't think my criticism qualifies. I'm merely suggesting that the article would be stronger if it were more measured. There have been widespread and varied criticisms of Secretary Clinton's response to the Egyptian Revolution; many believe that she offered conflicting statements both supporting and opposing Mubarak, advocated too quickly for a full transition to electoral democracy, and abetted the rise of political Islam, to name but a few. These criticisms can be easily demonstrated through mainstream news sources, such as,[1],[2],[3],[4] and.[5] The article would be stronger and more comprehensive with the inclusion of some of this material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.244.10 (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the article is semi-protected, so 69.196.244.10 can't make any additions. 69, you could suggest here the specific wording you think should be added, and cite it to Reliable Sources (CNN and Reuters and Time qualify; realclearpolitics may not). If it sounds reasonable and is cited, some registered user is likely to add it to the article for you. And Tarc, let's play nice. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
First, to echo what Tarc said, the lead section does not include citations, because it merely summarizes material that is in the article body, all of which does have citations. Secondly, there is material about her reaction to Egypt and the Arab Spring, including that her statements regarding Mubarak and the situation kept changing, and including that she led a contradictory response to the Arab Spring. (And regarding what you say about Clinton advocating too quickly for a full transition to electoral democracy, there are others who say she stuck with Mubarak too long and was too slow to embrace the opposition. And the reality is that the U.S. has limited influence in this part of the world and most U.S. administrations, including Secretaries of State before her and Kerry now, are trying to muddle through as best they can.) Also note that there are space limitations here in the main article, but that there is a 14,000 word Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State subarticle entirely on her tenure. That one isn't semi-protected and an IP user is free to edit it. It does discuss Syria there; putting something here on it is on my list of things to look at. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Returning to this, I've added that Clinton supported a 2012 plan to give arms and training to selected Syrian rebels, but that Obama rejected it. I've also added some legacy-focused material on Clinton's tenure and relationship with Obama. In addition to what 69.196.244.10 complained about, now-blocked-as-a-sock user CFredkin tried to introduce material talking about Clinton's failures. It was slanted and rightly reverted by another editor, but one Pew Research poll in it had some value and I've restored and rewritten that into a Note. I've also added a brief mention of the Benghazi attack to the lead, since it's clear that's a matter that will continue to merit attention as one of the main events of her tenure . Wasted Time R (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Cite refurbishing

I'm going to be doing some renovations to this article's cite formatting, which has gotten a bit crufty over the last few years. In particular:

  • Using real nested footnotes inside the explanatory Notes. (They didn't exist at the time this section was first created.)
  • Junking access dates for everything except web sources that don't have a publication date. (Access dates aren't required by WP:CITEHOW for newspaper/magazine/broadcaster stories that have a publication date. They are of little value to readers or editors in those cases and using them clutters footnotes visually and drives up article load time. I stopped adding access dates to new cites in this article back in 2010 and it is none the worse for it. Articles now make it to FA without them, including both George W. Romney and Mitt Romney.)
  • Extending the Harvard citation style for books, currently done for the Bernstein bio, to the other book cites as well. (I'm not convinced of its utility myself but a lot of articles at FAC these days are using it.)
  • Unlinking some repeated publisher names. (This was started some time back but isn't done consistently.)
  • Resolve whatever deadlink urls there are.
  • Fix whatever 'red parameter notices' that the cite templates are putting out.
  • Update which sources are "fee required". (With the way newspaper paywalls and journal sites are these days, it's difficult to keep these accurate ... we'll see.)
  • Have the Notes, References, and Bibliography sections all show in the same number of columns.

I don't think any of these changes are objectionable, but thought I would mention them. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

SCHIP

Currently the article states: "...she was a force behind the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997...". It sounds like this has been disputed by a number of parties.[6] [7] Any issues with editing to reflect this perspective?CFredkin (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The current text is accurate according to the best sources. This FactCheck.org piece, which this article uses as it source, reviewed the Boston Globe piece that you point to (the Daily Kos piece that you also point to is an opinion blog entry that has no value here), and found that it did not portray the situation adequately, since it largely relied upon Kennedy and his staffers. Yes, Kennedy deserves the most credit for SCHIP, and Orrin Hatch deserves a lot too. But Hillary deserves significant credit also, some that Kennedy himself acknowledged with his earlier statement "The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue." Then everyone started picking sides in the great Obama vs Hillary battle, Kennedy sided with Obama, and things got a bit silly. As the FactCheck.org piece summarizes, "We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the SCHIP legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality." And that's what this article says. A similar conclusion is also reached by this AP fact check piece, which we could add as a second source to the article. And for readers who want to know more, the "History" section of the State Children's Health Insurance Program gives a full accounting of who did what when. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the detail.CFredkin (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Room for improvement in the lead

(1) "She was twice listed as one of the most influential lawyers in America."

This seems like either too little or too much. As is, this sentence is not meaningful, because the list could have been compiled by her and Bill. Of course, the list was compiled by the National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991, but the lead doesn't indicate that. Instead, the word "twice" suggests it was a widely held opinion rather than from one single source, or that a single source thought she was influential twice but not the rest of the time. It's just a confusing sentence, which could be simplified by saying "She developed a national legal reputation."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
In the eight years I've been working on this article, more editors have wanted specifics rather than generalities in the lead than those with your viewpoint, and I tend to agree that specifics are better. This case is borderline though - part of her legal reputation comes from her oft-cited "Children under the Law" journal article - so I'll think about more about how to get this across. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
More detail would be better than how it was.[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(2) "in 1997 and 1999, Clinton played a 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."

Not a leading role? Not a decisive role? If not, then such detail is unnecessary so early in this article. Doesn't it go without saying that she supported legislation achieved by her husband? The lead says later that she opposed most domestic policies of GW Bush, which is a very simple statement. Is there some problem with saying simply that she supported her husband's policies (or are we going out of our way to avoid making her sound like a helpful wife here)? Why not just say, "she played a role in advocating for other legislation achieved by the Bill Clinton administration"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
No, she played a specific role in these specific pieces of legislation getting formulated and passed, that was different than the general support that she gave all of Bill's initiatives. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
She played a leading role, not just a bit part. That's why it's in the lead.[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, it is better with "leading" added. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(3) "she supported military action in Afghanistan and the Iraq War Resolution, but subsequently objected to the George W. Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq and most of its domestic policies."

She only objected to most of Bush's domestic policies subsequent to the Iraq War Resolution? Of course not. She was a Democratic Senator, so it goes without saying that she mostly objected to Bush's domestic policies. Do we say that she supported most of her husband's policies, or does that go without saying?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't go without saying. Plenty of Democrats supported key Reagan bills in the 1980s, plenty of Republicans supported JFK and LBJ bills in the 1960s. Don't project today's absolute partisan polarization onto all eras. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, she did not start to oppose Bush's domestic agenda subsequent to the Iraq War Resolution.[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, it is better with "continued to oppose" added. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(4) "She took formal responsibility for her department's lack of preparedness leading up to the 2012 Benghazi attack, but defended her personal actions in regard to the matter."

That sounds like responsibility in name only, and is not accurate. She was defensive testifying to Congress but was more forthcoming in an interview with CNN. Per the cited CNN article: "I take responsibility". Nothing there about "formal" responsibility. She was widely reported as falling on her sword after telling CNN: "The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals." She also blamed the "fog of war" for widely-reported and widely-criticized misstatements: "In the wake of an attack like this, in the fog of war, there's always going to be confusion," Clinton said. "And I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence. Everyone who spoke tried to give the information that they had." So a much more balanced summary in the lead would be: "Later, she took responsibility for her department's lack of preparedness leading up to the 2012 Benghazi attack, also attributing misstatements about it to the fog of war."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
What I was trying to get across is that she took responsibility for Benghazi in the sense of "It happened under my watch and I am thus responsible," just like anything that goes wrong on a ship is considered the captain's responsibility, even if they knew nothing about it. She has not accepted any real blame for the lack of preparedness and has defended her personal actions before, during, and after, while also accepting all the recommendations of the Pickering-Mullen report. The Sunday morning talking points business does not belong in the lead because it was Susan Rice who said them, not Hillary, and it's the most partisan and least significant of any of the aspects to the Benghazi matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I recommend that you double-check the chronology of what happened. As I recall, Clinton personally stood over the caskets and blamed a video made in California. The charge is that she was part of a concerted effort prior to the election to conceal that this was a pre-planned terrorist/Al Qaeda attack, which would have conflicted with the administration's meme that Al Qaeda was basically defeated. The concern about such a coverup could be dismissed as partisan claptrap, but I don't think that all responsible analysts have dismissed it that way. In any event, regarding her acceptance of respibsibility for the lack of preparedness for the September 11 Benghazi attack, see the NYT: "On the eve of the second presidential debate, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday night that she took 'responsibility' for the failure to successfully defend against the Sept. 11 attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
That is POV. Attempting to claim that a conspiracy theory is mainstream enough for what others may see as undue weight in the article is "Pushing POV". I am familiar with the chronology as well as the dates of the release of the Innocence of Muslims video clip, the subsequent protests and the deaths caused by those protests around the world. I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to Clinton standing over caskets making speeches but I would need to see a source for that.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Look, I simply suggested that WTR ought to look more closely at reliable sources. I am not pushing for us to mention a conspiracy theory, unless it's discussed by reliable sources. Regarding Clinton standing over caskets: "Clinton said the rage and violence aimed at American missions was prompted by 'an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.'". Whether that was a deliberate lie or just wishful thinking, it's widely acknowledged that her statement was false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want to debate the subject find a political forum off Wiki. You said: "As I recall, Clinton personally stood over the caskets and blamed a video made in California". No, Clinton did not stand over caskets and blame a video. There was great confusion those first few days and even though the subject of a retaliation for another event was discussed and even on Wikipedia I took out information that stated Benghazi was absolutely a result of the video on that particular article, no one knew for sure and we still don't have absolute answers or that no one involved that night thought they were protesting a video. This is a BLP and we need to be sensitive to how we place information. We certainly can say that Clinton herself blamed the video (I believe that already present in the article) but such charged wording mixed with glittering generalities will certainly receive a perception of POV.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If you deny the veracity of reliable news reports, perhaps you'll also deny the veracity of this State Department transcript.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
AYW, I think you are misreading this transcript. In the preceding paragraph she quotes people characterizing the Benghazi attack as done by "thugs and killers" and "an act of ugly terror". Then she says it's been a difficult week for the State Department, and she lists two things that have made it difficult, the "heavy assault on our post in Benghazi" and "rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video". That second item is a reference to the violent protests over the film that unquestionably did occur in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Regarding the "administration's meme that Al Qaeda was basically defeated", yes their capabilities were degraded but nobody in the administration thought they were defeated, hence the drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, etc. that were still quite active during 2012. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, she told Congress later: “I did not say . . . that it was about the video for Libya.” So she knew when she gave the speech before the election (when greeting the caskets) that there was no evidence Benghazi was about a video, and yet in a lawyerly way conveyed that impression by discussing the video. She is also reported to have told a grieving parent: "We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” The whole administration was seeking to advance the notion that terrorism had been severely degraded, and thus the Benghazi attack on September 11 was a mob rather than Al Qaeda types making a pre-planned attack, and moreover was due to a weird unexpected (and unexpectable) thing like a video over which the administration had no influence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The quote about Hillary is from a Glenn Beck interview in which worse accusations are made against Obama and Biden; understandably the parent is very upset but that doesn't exactly make this an RS for us. The degree to which Al Qaeda had been degraded was never a campaign issue - there has been bipartisan consensus on the drone strikes campaign and during the foreign policy debate last year Romney agreed with what Obama was doing in that respect - so there was no reason for the administration to knowingly portray Benghazi otherwise. We will have to agree to disagree about this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This is more a matter for the body of the article, so we can postpone this discussion. However, you forget the context. The Obama campaign was asserting that it had severely degraded Al Qaeda, whereas Romney was saying that much more needed to be done. Every news outlet that contemporaneously reported on Clinton's "awful Internet video" remark interpreted it (understandably) as including Benghazi. Moreover, Romney was faulting Obama and Clinton for "apologizing" about the video even before the Benghazi attack. But we can discuss this some other time, with reference to specific reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

(5) "Clinton became the most widely traveled Secretary of State during her time in office and envisioned 'smart power' as the strategy for asserting U.S. leadership and values in the world."

By itself, "smart power" is a meaningless, self-aggrandizing slogan. Like, "She envisioned 'unparalleled greatness' for the United States".Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with most of what you said here and noticed that much of your changes were reverted. I see the above as not at all neutral, but formed opinion. I see no mention of the sources and if there is an issue with how they are summarized. In short, you seem to have an awful lot of changes you feel needed to be made with very little real argument. Some of it even sounds insensitive to the facts and the subject.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Mark, if you're commenting about this last point, "smart power" is a technical term, whereas it sounds like flattery to those who don't know its technical meaning. If this notion really belongs in the lead, then it would be better to say she supported a combination of hard power and soft power strategies, don't you think? Also, Condoleeza Rice logged more miles, so isn't it wrong to suggest that Clinton traveled more? Anyway, isn't being widely traveled a rather weak bit of trivia? Many great Secretaries of State never left the United States, and trusted their subordinate ambassadors to do a competent job following orders. The lead is already very long, and such trivia is better left for the main body of the article.
I'm sorry you think that I'm being mean or "insensitive" to Hillary Clinton. I suppose a hagiography would be kinder toward her, but that is not the purpose of a Wikipedia BLP.
I have referred to the sources in my comments #1 (discussing National Law Journal), #4 (quoting CNN interview), and #5 (referencing Condoleeza Rice and also the definition of "smart power"). The reason I did not reference sources in #2 and #3 is because I am simply being critical of phraseology (if she played "a role" but not a leading role or decisive role then it does not belong in the lead, and saying that she only objected to Bush's domestic policies subsequent to the Iraq War Resolution is just bad phraseology).
I'm aware that I was reverted on these five points, but thanks for reminding me. Is there something wrong with starting a talk page discussion instead of edit-warring?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
What I am saying is, you are actually stating as fact such things as "it sounds like flattery to those who don't know its technical meaning". It is jumping to conclusions without a logical basis. Leave the technical terms as they are described and don't sell the reader short. Did Condi travel more? I don't know. I do know that I have seen several references for the Clinton information and this isn't a place to debate the general subject. As I said, you don't discuss the references or if the summaries used are accurate. That seems a bit telling.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
In international relations, the term smart power refers to the combination of hard power and soft power strategies. There is no reason to reference the former rather than the latter, unless the purpose is to mislead readers. It is 100% logical for readers to read ordinary terms as having their ordinary meaning, instead of a technical meaning. If you don't know about Condi, then you didn't look at the body of this Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You have not given a good reason for the edit on smart power. I also note that the page explains enough and that a Wikilink is enough of an explanation in the lead itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
"Smart power" is a specific and concise (which you usually like) term. It's been used in both the popular and academic press. Time magazine ran a cover story on it. We have links so that readers can easily see what the term means. To object to it because it contains the word "smart" in it is silly. Just because a "smartphone" is called that doesn't mean the caller using it is an intelligent person. Just because some drops a "smart bomb" on an enemy doesn't mean it is a wise action. But those terms can still be used. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
As for "most widely traveled", that means most countries visited. There were lots and lots of media stories about her heavy traveling and it deserves mention in the lead. Note 14 explains that Condi still holds the record for most miles. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I have never favored obscure technical terms, especially in the lead, regardless of whether they are concise or not. I can cite lots of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to this effect. The lead should be understandable without clicking on links, and in this instance the technical language is especially heinous because readers may assume they understand what the ordinary-sounding words "smart power" mean. Everyone knows what a "smartphone" is. Almost no one knows that "smart power" is a technical term. In plain English, “smart power” means combining use of hard power (military and economic) in combination with soft power (attracting and co-opting others to do what you want). This would be very easy to put into the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is now upside-down, with a longer explanation of smart power in the lead than in the body and with some of the lead material unsourced anywhere (e.g. "legitimacy of American action"). I continue to think it's all unnecessary. The lead summarizes, the body explains. There's also no explanation in the lead of what the Legal Services Corporation does or what the Whitewater controversy was about, for example, nor should there be. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree the explanation of smart power is too long. Since I'm in a series of consecutive article edits, I'll restore the much shorter language: "use of 'smart power' by the United States, which means combining military and economic power with a softer approach of attracting and co-opting others." But if we just eliminate the explanation from the lead then it just sounds like we're calling her intelligent ("Legal Services Corporation" does not give any incorrect impressions).Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Mark has again bloated it up to 28 words. Ten to twenty words should be more than enough. Plain English is a wonderful thing, and I suggest we use it. That's neither pro-Hillary nor anti-Hillary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Arrrgh! "Smart power" is the name of a doctrine, it doesn't imply another pro- or anti- about anyone. If the name of the doctrine were "simple power", it wouldn't imply she's a simpleton. If we say someone believes in American exceptionalism, that doesn't imply they are an exceptional person or even an American. If we say a scientist writes about the conservation of momentum, that doesn't mean they are an environmentalist. If we say a businessperson became the CEO of Best Buy, we don't have explain that you don't always get the best buys there. Down the path of sanitizing articles this way lies madness. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
It is an obscure technical term that is likely to be misleading without any explanation in the lead. If the name of the doctrine were "idiotic power" then I'm sure you would be fighting tooth and nail to add a plain English explanation, or simply replace the jargon with a plain English explanation. Are you really going to make me cite policy and guidelines here? Anyway, is there a single American politician or diplomat in the entire universe who has ever opposed the concept of smart power? If not, then this ought to be deleted from the lead (which is extremely long).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
That is untrue, I would use the name whatever it is. You keep conflating two different arguments: one, that largely unknown terms must be explained in place, and two, that the name of the term is too beneficial to Hillary. The first is true for the body but not the lead and the second is ridiculous. By now many readers will have no idea what the Whitewater controversy is (she was accused of cheating in a rafting competition?) but we do not stop to explain it in the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
But in any case, if we do explain her approach to smart power in the lead, it has to be a subset of what is said and sourced in the article body. The construct that was there included a copy-and-paste of wording from a CSIS report, and contrary to what Mark Miller says below, we can't just appropriate that wording here. I've rewritten it accordingly. I'm open to other wordings but it should be focused on how Clinton viewed smart power being applied. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not object to saying that she travelled a lot. But it would be easy enough to point out that she is not unique in that regard.[5]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You replacing one technical term with two more did not help or improve the article and Ms. Clinton is indeed cited as the most traveled secretary of state. It is accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You are correct about technical terms, and I have endeavored to edit the article accordingly. Regarding travel, I don't see the need to go out of our way to make it seem like Clinton traveled more than anyone else, by making hyperfine distinctions between traveling more miles versus visiting more countries. With Rice, she was one of the top travelers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is not about Rice. It is about Clinton. As far as the travel information, it is notable, accurate and historic. I feel strongly that it remain unless consensus changes.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I feel strongly that the Benghazi language should remain unless consensus changes. Is that okay with you?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course not. See below. I have very specific reasons for my objections. Not all your suggestions may have been unreasonable. Some have even been improvements. However, the Benghazi situation is based on an interpretation of a specific quote I feel is not interpreted correctly.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This article may leave readers with the impression that Clinton travelled more miles abroad than Rice. Such impression is unnecessary, and is the result of enthusiasm (e.g. in the media) for saying that Clinton was in some way the first to do everything she has ever done. It would be easy enough for us to say that she is among the Secretaries of State who have travelled the most. Anyway, it's not a huge deal. It's much more important that we get the Benghazi stuff right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This article makes it clear, in both the lead ("widely") and the text ("Clinton visited 112 countries during her tenure, making her the most widely traveled secretary of state") as well as the Note, what the metric is. And at the time I added the different metrics and record holders to the United States Secretary of State article. And as the next sentence in this article states, she viewed all this travel as an essential part of her approach to the job, so it is important to include. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The lead now says she travelled a lot, and the body of the article elaborates, which seems fine to me. You?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your change had no consensus. Both Wasted Time and I have both disagreed with changing the lead section to lessen the claim that she was the most widely traveled SOS. You asked for a qualifier for the technical term, but your first attempt was not an improvement. I added the exact explanation from the Wikipedia article (with proper attribution) that you claim is too verbose so I have copy edited it for brevity.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Specific is better, and the lead should say either "most widely" or should be reworded to say "most countries". Note that both the Condoleezza Rice article and the United States Secretary of State article now state who has the most miles mark; no one is dissing Condi here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I could support something that was more specific such as "Traveled to more countries than any other Secretary of State". That seems simple enough and even Anythingyouwant agrees with that much, but I don't support the disclaimer about total miles in the lead as excessive detail.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't agree with such cherry-picking. On the other hand, if Mark would stop trying to whitewash the rest of the lead, and stop using such a verbose explanation of "smart power", then I'd be glad to just include in the lead that Hillary travelled to the most countries.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
If you think we are here to trade what goes into this article you are mistaken. You also seem to misunderstand what a consensus is. It isn't cherry picking to exclude information not pertinent to this biography. This is not the Rice Biography or the Secretary of state article. It isn't a race, a comparison or a measurement. Clinton achieved this and you seem to keep wanting additions that seem out of place by measuring other factors to somehow diminish or overshadow an accomplishment with content out of place in the lead and article in general. Not every detail from the body goes in the lead and I do feel it is to much to include information that is in a note to be given undue weight in the lede.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This strikes me as puffery. Rice travelled more miles abroad, so we're trying to use a hypertechnical distinction so that we can put in the lead "Hurray, Hillary is tops", or words to that effect. Rice also travelled more widely "within" foreign countries than Hillary did. If you really think specificity is necessary in the lead (which I don't regarding this trivia) then something like "Clinton travelled to more countries than any Sec State, though not as many total miles as her immediate predecessor".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Mark Miller is right, you don't make trades about what goes into the article. The lead should either mention most widely traveled or traveled to most countries, not both, and it should not mention Condi. And whatever it says is independent of what it says about smart power. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I support the current language in the lead (by WTR) regarding travel and regarding smart power. This is a valid compromise, though I think both points are trivial puffery and would be better in the body of the article alone. I do believe in compromise, and therefore support the improved current language about travel and smart power.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Garbled text about Benghazi

A few days ago, Wasted Time R inserted the following text:

“She took formal responsibility for departmental preparedness before the 2012 Benghazi attack….”

Today, I removed the word “formal”, explaining in the edit summary what she said: “Per the cited CNN article: ‘I take responsibility’.”

Then, Mark Miller replaced this text with the following garbled language: “She took responsibility for the security of American diplomatic outposts the 2012 Benghazi attack….” His edit summary stated: “What the actual source says really says (see body of article)”. The body of the Wikipedia article says: “On October 15, Clinton said that regarding the question of preparedness, she took responsibility….” The cited source backs this up. I object to the insertion of garbled nonsense instead of the reliably sourced information that was previously in the Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Funny that you call what the source says as "garbled". Except for the missing word the text "She took responsibility for the security of American diplomatic outposts during the 2012 Benghazi attack…." is indeed accurate and what the source is stating. The wording is not original enough for copyright. Responsibility is for security. Preparedness is a part of that. Nit picking doesn't help this situation nor the exaggerated terms.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Please indicate which cited source you are referring to. Your language suggests she took responsibility for what happened at other outposts, not specifically for the Benghazi outpost. Her acceptance of responsibility regarding the Benghazi outpost is what made the news, not any acceptance of responsibility for the peace and quiet at the U.S. consulate in Melbourne, Australia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
First, it isn't my language, but simply the language used in the reference. Yes...she took responsibility for what happened at other outposts. That what Secretary of States do. What...did you think she was only referring to just one event or one place? It was a "Buck stops here" comment. You are interpreting the meaning from her statement. I am summarizing the references. Read the article please.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Will you please tell me what reference? What article are you referring to?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
There's only one source for this.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The CNN source you mentioned when you made your edit. The one titled: "Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security".--Mark Miller (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is what the source says:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm over the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she's responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.
"I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."

Sounds clear to me. Seems the article needs to be adjusted.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) Given the contentiousness at this talk page about Benghazi, and the insistence that the article be changed without consensus, I suggest that we need a broader range of sources to resolve the matter. For example, here is an excerpt from the New York Times:

On the eve of the second presidential debate, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday night that she took “responsibility” for the failure to successfully defend against the Sept. 11 attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that, in order to achieve some point of view in the lead you wish to alter the information. No, I don't agree with that at all. The content was not supported by the source. there was no mention of the word "Preparedness". As a BLP inaccurate information such as that is to be removed without discussion. I will look at your new source and we can certainly look at the Benghazi information, but the wording the Clinton took responsibility for "security" is accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Your assumption of bad faith is unfortunate. Don't you realize that I didn't insert the word preparedness into the lead? In any case, preparedness is how you establish security. You prepare for attacks. I am not insisting on any particular wording, but I would like the lead to reflect that Clinton took responsibility without any caveats for the security failure in Benghazi on September 11, not for some general safety at other places and other times.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Even that one supports the wording of "Security"/ Its titled: "Clinton Takes Responsibility for Security Failure in Libya".--Mark Miller (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You don't insist on wording but you keep changing it and would like the lead to reflect that Clinton took responsibility without any caveats. Uhm...that is POV. Your Point Of View. There were caveats and you simply want this Wikipedia article to reflect what you want without regard to accurate summary of information on at least this and a handful of other pieces of information. that all seem to reflect a more personal ideology than a neutral editor wanting to contribute encyclopedic content. Many people do not see their own POV, but that isn't a violation of policy unless you insist on your POV being inserted into the article against common sense and consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ [6]
  2. ^ http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-role-post-mubarak-egypt-still-unclear
  3. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-egypt-usa-idUSTRE71175920110315
  4. ^ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/17/the_consequences_of_obamas_bungled_mideast_policy_115463.html
  5. ^ http://world.time.com/2012/07/15/for-us-or-against-us-egyptians-confront-clinton-with-conspiracy-theories/
  6. ^ Susan Milligan (March 14, 2008). "Clinton role in health plan disputed". Boston.com.
  7. ^ "The vetting of Hillary Clinton...Now SCHIP". Daily KOS. March 26, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_16&oldid=1136795084"