Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Political Compass addition

The following statement was just added: "Political Compass scores Clinton's political positions as far-right, mid-authoritarian, as of the 2016 presidential election cycle."
This struck me as sufficiently odd that I looked at their positioning, and by their standards, essentially *everyone* except Bernie Sanders qualifies as right-wing authoritarian. This strikes me as somewhat not WP:NPOV. Do we regard Political Compass as a reliable source? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

FAQ questions 21 & 23 address this concern. If the statement from the site is kept, its probably worth clarifying what they mean when they say left and right. https://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq21 Gaijin42 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The site is not authoritative. Even so, if we used it we should mention that Clinton is to the right of Sanders and to the left of the Republicans. BTW, I know that Republicans are more authoritarian than Democrats, but they have them on the same scale as Stalin and Hitler. TFD (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Having looked into it further, I'm not sure this site qualifies as a WP:RS. It seems to be effectively a blog-type work of a single journalist. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that it's WP:NPOV, if you look at all of the issues – past and present. I know I have, and – (full disclosure, I'm a Bernie supporter) – Hillary only seems slightly different than the Republicans, to me. But then again, even Bernie isn't left-libertarian "enough".

Consider it from a "world outlook". The United States already has a standard which is pretty far-right, politically – whereas much of the civilized world is center-left. Bernie, as a center-left politician, is considered a "centrist", or "center-right", on their scale – and yet, in the United States, people consider him a "flaming leftist". That's pretty absurd.

If you consider many of the people in the "Political positions" subsection – those who call her a "liberal" – many of them are labeling her based on a US standard, but not by an objective standard. The US is so far right, that someone who isn't as "far-right" as the rest of them is considered a "leftie" or a "liberal". The other people who stated their opinions, that she's a "liberal", are already used to far-right politics.

There's a similar phenomenon – many far right Tea Partiers refer to both Republicans and Democrats as "Communists". They don't judge objectively, but rather, from their own modified stances.

From an objective world-view, Hillary is far-right. That's not the case within the context of American politics, who often consider her "far-left", but it's true, nonetheless. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 06:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of including something that is not present-day, U.S.-centric and is open to a broader historical and philosophical base. From that perspective U.S. politics can be seen as often being played between the 40-yard lines (to use an American football metaphor). But these particular charts seem very idiosyncratic and not grounded in real data and not consistent over time – compare the current U.S. election one to this one for 2008, for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The charts show two points I think are relevant: Clinton's policies would be considered to the right of mainstream left-wing and centrist parties in other countries, and they are the same as George W. Bush. but we would need better sources to make that observation. TFD (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Our own Wikipedia article on Political compass mentions little is known about who runs the site, or about the methodology they use. It also mentions its validity has been questioned. I would say this would be of novel interest, at best, but should not be included in a serious Wikipedia article. Crucially, I think, the only reason to include it is if a significant number of secondary reliable sources referred to it. Instead, we just have the primary source of the website itself, and this is not satisfactory. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

One recurring problem on determining who is right, center, or left is that the subject of the political spectrum has differing definitions since the 18th century and significant differences between political systems or historical eras. For example, right-wing politics in 18th and 19th century France largely had to do with political factions consisting of "traditional conservatives, monarchists and reactionaries". Just about every American political faction would be considered "left" in comparison to them, because Americans did not favor absolute monarchy, hereditary nobility, or a powerful church. But nowadays Gaullism, a traditional ideology of the French right, is devoted to republicanism. The political system changed and the spectrum changed with it. Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that the political spectrum was developed in the early 20th century when all the current major ideologies had been largely established. U.S. politics would have been considered liberal or centrist. The French Right only adopted republicanism when they could not agree on a legimitist, orleanist or napoleonic succession. TFD (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've attempted to improve the Political Compass material so that it can stay in. I've moved it to the paragraph of other assessments of this kind, so it doesn't stand out as much; I've explained why it's different from other assessments; I've explained what its axes represent and what the scales are; I've taken out links to WP articles on ideologies, since who knows if Political Compass means the same thing by these terms as WP editors; and I've given numerical values to HRC's results from the chart (numerical values, if you take their test, is what they give you), so as to avoid having to characterize something like +7 right as "far right" or "mid-right" or whatever. With these changes, I think the material is a data point among a number of other data points and can stay in. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I still think the whole section is horrid, full of unnecessary labels and vagueness. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the reference should be removed unless it's mentioned by a reliable secondary source, as an indicator of validity and notability.CFredkin (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuits against Hillary Clinton increases

Anti-Clinton/Justice Dept rant by drive-by IP editor that does not address article improvement. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On Jan. 4, 2016, FBI announces in all major online newspapers that a second expansion of the Clinton investigation includes the Clinton Foundation. Feb. 2, the Director of the FBI sends letter to Congress to report that a Criminal Investigation is being conducted that commenced in Jan. 2016. Feb. 8, Congressmen along with the support of 15 thousand signatures of citizens petition the U.S. Dept. of Justice for a Special Prosecutor. Feb. 28, to prevent the Control by a Special Prosecutor, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch swore to Congress that a Criminal Investigation is being conducted with the FBI as partners. Mar. 16, THE NEW YORK Post reports that Judge Sullivan has granted a Motion of Discovery against Hillary Clinton, because the evidence shows wrong-doing exists. The article by Charles also quotes the FBI Director who declares that the evidence shows laws have been violated by Hillary Clinton. Mar. 29, NEWSWEEK affirms report by Reuters that Judge Lamberth has also granted a Motion of Discovery against Hillary Clinton. All the above facts were never reported by any of the four TV News networks. The single major aftermath is that the political witch hunt (term repeatedly employed by former Sec. of State Clinton) has now evolved to the judicial system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEFE:97C0:54C0:EB3F:34C8:B001 (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Fox is one of the four TV networks and their news has reported on all this and more ad nausem. 2600:1002:B122:E10A:49A2:538D:51BB:D53B (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a biography? Really?

Why does the top of the talk page say "Even though this page is not a biography..." etc etc.? This plainly is a biography. It's an article, about the life and characteristics of Hillary Clinton, and is titled "Hillary Clinton." It seems that that note is not necessary, or maybe replace it with a more fitting tag. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hobbes Novakoff: The tag in question says BLP rules apply at this article, whether or not the article itself is a biography. It's appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... Shouldn't we have a separate tag for that sort of thing? "This article is a biography" vs. "Not a biography but still subject to BLP." The wording in the tag is a little unclear and at least at first gave me the impression that it was saying "despite the fact that this article is not a biography." Upon closer reading it makes somewhat more sense, but... it doesn't feel right. I'll go with your advice though; I'm new here and a little unfamiliar with everything.Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a generic tag that can (and should) be applied to all talk pages of articles relating to or referencing living persons, regardless of whether or not the articles are biographies. It makes the point that WP:BLP applies not just to biographies, but to any article/template/discussion/whatever on Wikipedia. I would argue that the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is misnamed, and should now be called "Concerning living persons" or something like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It does not say "Even though this page is not a biography," it says "even if." "If" means it may or may not be a biography. TFD (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

New RfC opened: Should current and recent candidates for US President be called "politicians"?

Should current and recent candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election include politician among their notable occupations in the lead of their biographical articles, even if the candidate eschews the term? Please participate in a new Request for Comment on this question. General Ization ^Talk 12:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Email controversy in the introduction

I removed language that put the email controversy into the already overlong introduction because (a) it adversely changes the neutrality of the introduction, and (b) it assigns too much weight to a thing that is unresolved and may yet amount to nothing. Without respect for the WP:BRD process, this was then reverted. With a controversial edit of this nature, I believe it is incumbent upon the editor adding the material to win a consensus for doing so on this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, no way is that significant enough at this moment to be a defining part of her notability. In the remote chance that this or Benghazi become her Watergate, that would be different. More likely, both will fade back as campaign issues rather than governance or biographical ones. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Here in italics is the language that I inserted in my last article edit:

“

She used social media to communicate the U.S. message abroad, and an unresolved controversy continues about her use of a private server instead of government servers for official email communication.

”

This seems like a modest mention, considering that there's a huge subsection about this later in the BLP. We don't wait for controversies to be fully resolved before mentioning them in a lead, if reliable sources have been providing extensive coverage for a long time (e.g. the allegations against Dennis Hastert have been in the lead of that article for many months, and rightly so). Anyone who thinks there has been more coverage of Hillary Clinton's use of social media to communicate the U.S. message abroad than coverage of the email issue is dreaming.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the social media stuff should be in there either. The lede is way too long and needs serious pruning. Anyway, this is Hillary Clinton's biography, and apart from personal life stuff it should really only include biographically significant stuff in it, and the lede should only briefly summarize the most notable of that stuff. And that does not include this email issue at this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is important, has received substantial coverage and belongs in the lead. TFD (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

TFD, you've just joined[1] an edit war in an article that's presumably under article discretionary sanctions. Would you kindly self-revert to the stable version of the lede in order to wait for the discussion here? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I beat TFD to it. I agree with Scjessey that this isn't that biographically significant. If we put in this, then wouldn't we also have to put in Whitewater, Vince Foster, etc. that received lots of press when they were en vogue? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Wait until something formal and definitive happens. Per Anythingyouwant's point, nothing went into the lead of the Hastert article until 28 May 2015 when he was indicted on federal charges of evading currency rules and lying to the FBI. Yes, at that point the story behind those charges ended up in the lead too, but that made sense given the circumstances. So if Hillary gets indicted over the emails, that should go into the lead. Or if the FBI issues some strong referral of criminal wrongdoing but the Department of Justice declines to indict, that could go into lead. Or if some governmental body issues a strongly-worded censure against what she did, that could go into the lead. Or if some other formal and official report is made. But so far, none of these have happened, and we don't even know exactly what the current investigation is looking into or how they are framing it. Wait until we know. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Or if she loses the election as a result, or if it becomes the defining issue in the campaign. There are a lot of ways in which this could become lead-worthy, or not. Presumably, we'll look to how the sources react to these events and base our WP:WEIGHT analysis accordingly. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems like there must be some level of coverage in reliable sources that would justify a mention in the lead. The Sanders campaign is urging the FBI to hurry up,[2] and there are tons of facts in the public domain that John Q. Public can form opinions from. Per WP:BLP, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it...." If it can go in the article, it can go in the lead. P.S. The Hastert indictment said nothing about sex, and there was no official suggestion about sex until long after sex was in the Hastert lead. There are many many other BLPs that have unofficial accusations in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The media likes to go crazy over Hillary Clinton, because it hates her. But at the moment, there is no evidence to suggest she has done anything illegal ever. Despite all this, we still give the matter coverage in the body of the article and we also give it its very own article. But until it has some biographical significance, it has no business in the already way-too-long introduction. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You'd be more credible if you were doing anything to shorten the lead other than excluding a mention of this particular matter that "the subject dislikes". It's not merely a matter of illegality, but of wisdom and competence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Wisdom and competence"? Really? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post: “Her decision to exclusively use a private e-mail account while secretary suggests she made a deliberate decision to shield her messages from scrutiny. It was a mistake that reflects poor judgment about a public trust.”

New York Times: “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s decision when she was secretary of state to use only her personal email account to conduct official business was a disturbing departure from the normal practice of relying primarily on departmental emails for official business.”

Charlotte Observer: “Clinton isn’t the first to use private email, but her failure to disclose massive batches is troubling. … But key issues remain unclear. What about her private-account emails to representatives of foreign governments? What about emails to U.S. officials on their private or government accounts?”

Wall Street Journal: “The real story here is that none of this is a surprise. This is how the Clintons roll. They’re a political version of the old Peanuts cartoon character who was always surrounded by a cloud of dirt. Ethical shortcuts and controversies are standard operating procedure.”Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The criterion for including allegations of wrong=doing is not whether they are true but whether they are considered significant in reliable sources about the subject. The artcle on Richard Nixon for example mentions Watergate even though Nixon was never indicted or convicted of any offense. The emails are an election issue, Clinton was asked about them in the first presidential debate for example. TFD (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Watergate had a definitive outcome: Nixon's resignation. Therefore, it's imperative to mention Watergate in Nixon's lead. Yeah, it's an issue, but it's WP:RECENTISM to include it considering it has had minimal impact on the subject of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Please explain how I lack "credibility" exactly? And please also explain how I'm not "doing anything to shorten the lead" when that is precisely what I have begun to do in initiating this discussion? Please don't diminish my efforts just because I started with a specific thing you evidently disagree with. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I retract the bit about credibility (for now anyway). It was a tangential and distracting comment on my part.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

agree with the no-lead group for now. Watergate is very coupled with Nixon's long term reputation and biography. It remains to be seen if that is the case for Clinton. Certainly it is a major issue for the election. It is properly mentioned in the lead of the election article. If this issue ultimately results in her being indicted (or recommendation for indictment from the FBI), or losing the nomination, or losing the election (as linked by major reliable sources) then it would ultimately be the end of her political career, and would be worthy for her BLP lead at that time. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu, so you would have held out on mentioning Watergate in Nixon's article until he resigned. And the justification would be that it was a recent event. TFD (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy

Should Clinton's use of a private server for her government-related emails, rather than the U.S. government server, be included in the lead of this article Here is link to the disputed text. TFD (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Include Her use of a private e-mail server has received extensive on-going coverage in mainstream media and is discussed in the body of this article. Therefore I think inclusion meets "Balancing aspects": "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." TFD (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Don't Colin Powell and Condi Rice both had the same setup. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
No'. It's already mentioned in the article, but At this point the issue is no more than a campaign season political controversy than a milestone event in her life. The sources describe it as such, not something of biographical significance that would belong in a several-paragraph summary of her life to date. Lots of people, state department heads included, talk business on their personal email and vice-versa. The fact that it happened is only important as a defining issue of their biography if it has a major effect on their lives. So far it has not. It might, but we can revisit that if it does. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes per my comments in the section above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
No Sufficient coverage in article, the future will show if it becomes a sufficiently prominent topic to be more prominently included. To do so now is premature.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Mild no. I understand the case for including it, and a couple of times I almost did myself, but I ended up thinking eh, let's wait a bit and see what happens. (As for Watergate going in the Nixon lead, after the June 1972 break-in, no; after the March/April 1973 developments [courtroom developments, conspiracy revelations, Haldeman/Ehrlichman resigning], yes.) In any case, the entry for the emails matter in the Table of Contents gives it pretty good visibility. And also consider Rule #8 for easier life in WP: don't worry too much about editorial arguments that time will solve anyway. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
No — This Wikiedpia-obsession with Clinton's emails is getting quite tedious. If or until the email saga results in some hurdles for Clinton –FBI/Attorney General wise– then I'd be open to it being in the lead. Until then, it's certainly not biography defining, nor is it career or presidential run defining either. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
No. Whether or not Powell or Rice did the same is a red herring. However, the lead is long already, and the controversy is not yet in my view big enough, or sufficiently career-defining, that it's worthy of inclusion in a five-paragraph summary of her life. If it becomes more important in the general election or beyond, the question can always be revisited then. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes: it is certainly more imporant that being "the first female senator from NY state" which is currently in there. Few words are sufficient. Marlytoss (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
No, but this may change to a yes depending on how events unfold, of course. Right now, it is not "biographically significant" enough. In fact, it's barely significant enough for the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
No' I agree with those who say that this is not yet career defining. Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
No At present, not significant for lead of bio of her whole life - any more than other alleged scandals are. Recentism - at one time some people would have insisted that ~~Whitewater,~~ Vince Foster, Travel office, ad nauseam be included in the lead - but they all went nowhere and correctly are not in the lead. This is no different - time will tell if this has a significant impact on her life story. Now, no. Tvoz/talk 07:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
NO This fact doesn't yet have the due weight. It is mentioned in the article and that is enough. This kind of unresolved issues should not be mentioned in the lead until they got resolved. 213.202.69.238 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

As secretary of state, Clinton used a private server for her government-related emails, rather than the U.S. government server. There is currently a police investigation to determine whether her actions were in violation of federal law. TFD (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu opposes inclusion in the lead on the basis that Powell and Rice both had the same set up. In fact they did not. On a handful of occasions each used a private email account rather than their government email, but it was only mentioned in mainstream media as part of the coverage of the Clinton email story. What coverage if any it deserves in those articles should be discussed in those articles. The significance of information to any article is determined by the weight it is provided in reliable sources, not the fairness of the relative coverage of information in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wasted Time R (talk · contribs), lots of stuff that Hillary Clinton has done is lead-worthy even though it clearly involved no criminal behavior on her part. Why assume the email thing is only lead-worthy if it was indictable? Lots of sources say it showed very poor judgment even apart from illegality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

But is it "biographically significant" at this point? Has it changed anything? No and no. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Full name in infobox's heading

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

Established professional journalistic practice, per style manuals of the AP, NYT, ad infinitum, is to render a subject's name in that indivual prefers such as often in her/his signature, etc. Thus it is WP's practice to render this in the header to the infobox when it conflicts with the shortened form the subject is generally known to the public by (as in wp:Common name); eg see Template:Infobox person (regarding middle initials): " If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the birth_name field, include them here."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to multiple previous exhaustive discussions in the talk page archives about this thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply - Indeed, I'm in agreement with the consensus on this talk page. My post here's a friendly ping reminding contributors (eg at Donald Trump) of WP practice in this regard. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Undertook lucrative speaking engagements" in the introduction?

In a similar fashion to the email controversy, I removed this segment from the introduction which (most likely) refers to her Goldman Sachs speeches because: it adversely changes the neutrality of the introduction, and it assigns too much weight to something that is irrelevant to both her career and her biography (much more so than the email controversy at that). I removed it twice and made a point the second time that it had no relevance to her career or life but it got readded both times without any explanation as to why; so I believe it is mandatory for the user or anyone who thinks it should be left there to win a consensus in this talk page for that segment to remain in the lead. Narciso003 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's ok to mention w/o a qualifier ("lucrative").--TMCk (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

include She practically made a career out of speaking. If her 5th book is lede notable, so is her speaking engagements. The speaking has certainly gotten more sustained coverage in the press than her book did. or many of the other items discussed. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that we would then have to add "undertook speaking engagements" to the lede of every article of every notable person who has been engaged to make speeches, which would include virtually every political leader in the U.S. bd2412 T 16:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

How many of those people have had scores of articles written about their speaking engagements? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

She's definitely had way less articles written about her speaking engagements than "The Donald" has had about all the trash-talking he's done and yet there's nothing about it on the lede of his article. Nonetheless if the email controversy was deemed not worthy of being in the lede then this definitely isn't worthy either in my opinion. Narciso003 (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Include. Here's what the BLP says below the lead:

“

She began work on another volume of memoirs, and began making appearances on the paid speaking circuit, receiving about $200,000 per engagement, as well as making some unpaid speeches on behalf of the foundation.[404] For the fifteen months ending in March 2015, Clinton earned over $11 million from her speeches....As of 2015, she was estimated to be worth over $30 million on her own....

”

So over a third of her net worth was from speeches given for hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. And her speeches have been in the lead for a long time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know it was that much. Nonetheless, like TMCk stated, it shouldn't be preceded by the qualifier "lucrative" if it's indeed voted to be left in the lede. It has a downright accusatory tone to it and even if it didn't it simply compromises the neutrality of the article. Narciso003 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Narciso003, the George W. Bush BLP says in the lead: "He is currently a public speaker...." If the word "lucrative" is the problem, please put it back without that word, though I think that word conveys why it's so notable (which is why I inserted it).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally now I think it should be voted out because both sides have good arguments (one side says that the speeches money accounts for 1/3 of her net worth and the other that it's only a campaign issue and that it's no different for most politicians, who don't have it stated on their Wikipedia ledes); but I am strongly against the "lucrative" qualifier because the message it sends is that they were particularly lucrative, when she just did a lot of them and got paid the normal amount of money a politician of her status would get paid.Narciso003 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton made much more in this line of work than the other living Secretaries of State, and her speeches are also notable for the non-publication of the transcripts.[3] The Washington Post, the New York Times, and many other reliable sources have not only deemed the speeches very notable, but have also characterized them as “lucrative”.[4] According to biographer James D. Boys, being on the speaking circuit helped Hillary Clinton “maintain political relevance and a public profile” while earning money.[5] It was basically one of the many jobs she has held, certainly no less appropriate for the lead of this article than for the lead of the George W. Bush article, and source of more than a third of her net worth.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post and The New York Times are not supposed to be absolutely impartial, unlike Wikipedia. Anyway, you said you didn't have an issue with the sentence not having "lucrative" in it, didn't you? Given what I've learned about her speeches being a source of a third of her net worth I don't particularly oppose now that sentence without the "lucrative" in it. So if someone wants to keep the discussion going then that's up to them. Narciso003 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to including "lucrative". It's accurate, relevant, and I like leads that actually say something. But realistically, it's a red flag to many editors and probably would be more trouble than it's worth to try to keep in. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment It's clear to me that this is only noteworthy insofar as her political opponents have made it a campaign issue. The removal was appropriate and this does not belong in the lede any more than Pres. Reagan's paid speeches belong in his. If any editor feels strongly that this should be mentioned in the lede, I suggest that such editor launch an RfC so that the matter can be put to rest. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. It was her major source of declared income. TFD (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary article sanctions have been imposed

Please see the updated editnotice for current sanctions, and heed the instructions. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This belongs at the top of the talk page rather than in a link here. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There's already a notice at the top of this talk page, and when one edits the page. This is just a courtesy notice. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Coffee The edit warning appears, but the notice at the top of the page just mentions normal DS in the politics area, not any specifically applied sanction. Additionally, the notices you sent to my and others pages is just the standard DS notice and does not mention the specific restriction. If editors are going to be sanctioned based on this new rule, communication of that rule needs to be made much more clearly. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Even the Arbitration Committee's policy on discretionary sanctions states the "Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}})." — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead too long?

A tag has been placed atop the BLP saying that the lead is too long. So, I gave brief descriptions instead of full names of three federal programs that she helped create. The lead was about this long when the article attained featured status in 2014, so I don't think it's way too long. I would, however, delete this sentence: "Clinton viewed 'smart power' as the best strategy for projecting U.S. influence, by combining military power with diplomacy and capabilities in economics, technology, and other areas." As described later in the BLP, Clinton has described the Libya military intervention as a case study in "smart power" which suggests that the term is amorphous, and indeed we quote David Ignatius as saying the term is vapid and overused.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Naturally the lead would be longer than that of the average BLP article, due to Clinton's obviously large involvement in politics throughout her career. However, I don't think five paragraphs of information in the lead is necessary. For me, it's only necessary to outline the most notable points of her career. To start, I would exclude the info about her early life, the details of which are already well established in "Early life and education". Linguist 111^talk 15:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hardly qualifies as summary information: "In 1969, she was the first Wellesley College student ever to speak at the request of other graduating seniors on their behalf at commencement." Somebody needs to read the lead of WP:LEAD. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

How would you re-phrase that without giving the false impression that she was selected by the professors or administrators to speak, or the false impression that she graduated at the top of her class and gave the speech as valedictorian, or the false impression that she rather than U.S. Senator Edward Brooke was the main speaker at that graduation? I would either completely omit that speech from the lead, or leave as-is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I simplified it to say "In 1969, she was the first Wellesley College student ever to be included as one of the speakers at commencement."Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

IMO that's too minor a point to include in the lead at all. How about "She attended Wellesley College, graduating in 1969"? And just put the "first student" stuff in the body of the text. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and that was the gist of my first comment. Not lead-worthy. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Concur. The speech should be removed from lead Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced it with the bare fact that she attended and graduated. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing the speech at graduation from the lead is okay with me, but leaving it in would be no big deal either. I previously entirely removed it, but the lead editor of the BLP felt it was important to show that the BLP subject was going places, even before marrying Bill Clinton. Anyway, cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And getting back to your original question, I would be OK with removing the sentence about "smart power". --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Grew up in Chicago and got degrees at Wellesley and Yale

I don't think there's any consensus to remove this from the lead:

“

Hillary Rodham grew up in the Chicago area. She attended Wellesley College, graduating in 1969. She then earned a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973.

”

So I'll restore it. This seems very apt for the lead. There does seem to be consensus to remove the sentence about "smart power".Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur that can stay. Unless DS turns things upside down, and I don't know that it does, WP:BOLD still applies for things you feel are uncontroversial. So one doesn't necessarily need prior consensus to remove something from the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Done with lead for now

Over the past few days, I have shortened the lead. It's down to 484 words from 588 words, according to my word counter. Similar shortening could be done to the rest of the article, I think. My only criticisms of the lead at this point are that it should briefly say something like "she was criticized for using a private email server", and should mention that the Libya intervention was "without congressional authorization" (my reasons were already discussed at this talk page). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I'm okay with most of these changes, but not some, for these reasons:

Her being the first student commencement speaker at Wellesley is given considerable importance in most biographical treatments. It's important for the lead because it conveys to the reader she was an accomplished person heading places before she ever met Bill Clinton.
Conversely, most biographical treatments give little attention to the company boards she served on other than Wal-Mart, so naming them is not necessary in the lead.
"While First Lady of Arkansas between 1978 and 1993" is wrong; Bill was governor of Arkansas from January 1979 to January 1981 and then again from January 1983 to December 1992.
"she helped reform Arkansas' public schools" is vague; "she led a task force ..." is more specific as to responsibility and not much longer.
The shortening of the Whitewater/subpoenaed/grand jury/investigations material seems misguided to me. This was a big deal at the time, the charges were serious, and what was here was already minimal.
"9/11 attacks" is too informal.
"which she later deemed successful" regarding the Iraq surge may be true but doesn't belong in the lead, since these have been private statements and what counts here is what she did publicly as a senator.
"Bush tax cuts" is how everybody refers to the 2001 and 2003 cuts.
If you take out "more primaries" in 2008 (she was actually the first women to win a real primary), we should at least indicate she far eclipsed the previous mark.
First you tried to combine the social media reference with the emails business, and now you're trying to combine it with smart power. It was a separate thing. It's better to put back the previous definition of smart power and give up on social media.

It's also worth noting that for many readers, this lead is all they will look at of this (or any) article. Giving the best summary of her career is more important than tersifying it. I've never seen or heard of a "real" reader (not another editor) complain about any lead in WP being too long. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll consider these here and via editing article. To start with, if the bit about commencement is included, it needs to be clarified. Edward Brooke gave commencement speech in 1969. Her speech was as a spokesperson, not in place of a guest speaker, and not as valedictorian; that makes her speech linsufficiently notable for the lead, IMHO, but whatever. If most editors here think going to war without congressional authorization (or making the nation's most closely-guarded secrets available to every intelligence service on Earth) is less notable than saying some stuff on behalf of your classmates, then that's how we'll write the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding corporate boards, if editors persist in inserting "numerous" or similar peacocking, then I'll put back in the names of the other two corporate boards mentioned in the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"While First Lady of Arkansas between 1978 and 1993" is not wrong; each year from 1979 to 1992 (inclusive) was somewhere between 1978 and 1993. There's no need to make readers of the lead realize that there was a gap, nor did the "between" language imply there was no gap. But this isn't worth arguing about.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

With respect to public schools in Arkansas, neither she or her task force directly reformed anything. They drafted legislation, which was then amended, enacted, and signed. Per NYT, she "drafted and helped her husband push through" the legislation, and I've clarified this in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

As to charges against her, we can simply say no charges were brought against her while First Lady. No need for "related to this or other investigations". No charges means no charges.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I prefer "9/11" to "September 11" because it's not only shorter but more recognizable, but you're right that it's less formal. Not worth arguing about.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"which she later deemed successful". Yes, this was a statement out of journalists' earshot, but it was said repeatedly and is a matter of war and peace, life and death, that's in reliable sources. It's a significant admission that she was wrong about something that's already in the lead. No reporters were at her wedding, but we still say she got married, sheesh. I will see if this already-succinct admission can be made more succinct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Bush tax cuts" is much more informal than merely "tax cuts", and it's also unusual (and unnecessary and unflattering) to introduce a person by last name only. So I will see if there's a mutually-agreeable way to say this concisely. "Bush" is also a misleading adjective here, since Obama extended the tax cuts in 2010 for years more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to "far" more delegates. Shirley Chisholm and Margaret Chase Smith might not have liked it though....Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

As to "smart power", I think that whole sentence is essentially fluff verging on peacocking (who supports dumb power? who supports divorcing diplomacy from use of force?) but am going to let it slide for now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You have a point about Brooke being the regular commencement speaker, so I've taken out that link, but "spokesperson" sounded like an anachronism to me, so I've reworded it to be close to the Boston Globe source.

Re education reform, I've read through all the other sources cited for this, and they give more emphasis to her leading the task force (the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee) than they do to her writing legislation, so I've reworded this to "she led a task force whose recommendations helped reform ..."

"related to this or other investigations" – this is a nod to Travelgate, Filegate, and Vince Foster files, all of which were subjects of formal Independent Counsel investigations in addition to Whitewater proper. Whether HRC was the most corrupt First Lady in history or the victim of unfair partisan hounding or something in between, the lead should have some reference to these. Indeed this piece of text has been in the lead for years and years, I don't see any reason to take it out.

You have a point about "Bush tax cuts" introducing a last name that has no antecedent (the one that used to be there was removed as part of more specificity about her Senate votes). Introducing the "that would later be extended by Obama" in the lead is completely irrelevant and off-target – she wasn't a Senator in 2010, she didn't vote on it, the extension was only temporary and got packaged with some other stuff, and everything got redrawn again in 2012 during the fiscal cliff negotiations. I've gone back to just "tax cuts of 2001 and 2003". Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The lead currently says, "Hillary Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969, where she became the first graduating student in college history to speak at a commencement." The body of the article says, "Following pressure from some fellow seniors, she became the first student in Wellesley College history to be chosen by graduating seniors to speak on their behalf, following commencement speaker Senator Brooke." I would instead write in the lead, "In 1969, Hillary Rodham was the first Wellesley College student ever to speak at the request of other graduates on their behalf at commencement." Much more informative, same length.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I added "currently" to the opening sentence, but have been reverted. I added the word for clarity, and would like to discuss. We are an online encyclopedia, and have to deal with current events. I say my addition is clear, direct and makes the opening sentence encyclopedic. I welcome the opinions of others, thanks. Jus da fax 21:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Clear water doesn't become more clear if more of the same is added so why add more?--TMCk (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems abrupt and as I say, unencyclopedic. Jus da fax 22:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree in part but adding "currently" doesn't really change that. For better flow I would move the campaigning to the end of that paragraph though. It's not that she wasn't known before this race.--TMCk (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Our articles on Sanders, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich all mention this candidacy in the first or second sentence, and none feel the need for the word "currently". WP:Other stuff exists, but they are all in the same race. "I am currently 60 years old" is no more clear than "I am 60 years old", when any idiot knows that age is not a constant. I support the status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's drop the idea of adding "currently" then, and instead look at rewording the sentence per TMCk. As it is, it's awkward, and needs adjustment. Jus da fax 00:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well just do it per WP:BOLD. That is not in dispute as far as I know, so we don't need discussion unless you need help with the language. You could look at the other four articles for examples. I certainly wouldn't oppose splitting the candidacy off into a second sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope this bold edit will address any flow concerns and will be uncontroversial. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. Jus da fax 00:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking for citation for religion in infobox

Sir Joseph blocked by Bishonen for disruptive behavior. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Concerning religion in infoboxes (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".

From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."

Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox.

We need proof that Hillary is a practicing Methodist. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/25/hillary-clinton-gets-personal-on-christ-and-her-faith/ Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Also this: 5 faith facts about Hillary Clinton: Social Gospel Methodist to the core. Jonathunder (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

She credits her Methodist upbringing and her involvement with Don Jones as shaping her world view.[6] TFD (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how you're defining "practicing". Surely you don't mean "churchgoing" as the criterion, since that doesn't correlate very well with true faith. It's clear enough from the above sources that she has an abundance of sincere faith, and that she identifies as Methodist. And religion is always relevant for a politician, whether it should be or not. So the infobox field stays. The only question is whether you want a cite (I could cite the NYT piece), or whether WP:V is sufficient. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I might agree, but apparently other users think otherwise. Would you say a Jewish person who is not that practicing is still Jewish for the infobox? Apparently on Wikipedia there are those who impose standards that are very hard to satisfy their made up policy so I am seeing if it's everyone. If she is not churchgoing then it should not be in the infobox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't care to get into hypotheticals in article talk, every case is different. If she is not churchgoing then it should not be in the infobox. Strongly disagree, for the reason stated. If there is a community consensus that explicitly says that, please provide a link. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You can read the RFC at Stanley Milgram, apparently if someone doesn't go to church or do certain religious activities, they are not religious. I don't agree, but if we are to follow the made up policy they it needs to be uniform. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That's local. If they want it to be global, it needs to be done in a far more public venue, preferably WP:VPP, and probably codified in a guideline. I for one never heard of Mr. Milgram. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, as the RFC there says by one of the guys, there is a policy that localcon can't overwrite. As for Milgram, you should check out the Milgram experiment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, why are you continuing to bring up a completely unrelated article here? Do you just want us to open up a full topic ban request on you or what? I'm really getting tired of this childish behavior. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the Milgram talk page? Apparently my view doesn't count for anything because I haven't posted on other pages. And if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. What exactly is wrong with asking for proof? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah so. I had heard of Mr. Milgram, having recently seen Experimenter and already had a vague awareness of the experiments. I had just forgotten his name.
But I don't believe Wikipedia guidelines, and especially very controversial ones like this one, can be established in article talk.
I don't understand your first sentence as to LOCALCON. The only reference to LOCALCON in the Milgram RfC is about non-religions, a term Wikipedia editors are currently using to describe things like atheism and agnosticism. None of that applies to Clinton. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Or to Milgram. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm beginning to lose some patience. This is the talk page for Hillary Clinton and it has nothing to do with any other article. Discuss Milgram at Milgram. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but based on the current policy as I understand it it might not be enough. I brought up Milgram because that is where this is currently being discussed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet again, the Milgram discussion affects nothing but Milgram. Even if they are speaking in generalities. Patience is now exhausted for today. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton regularly attended the Foundry United Methodist Church when here husband was president, although as senator she attended prayer sessions with Santorum and Brownback. She has spoken to Methodist congregations and identifies as a member. I agree though that we should not list a religion in the info-box unless it is unambiguous. TFD (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think if you can source that, that should be good enough for everyone. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph: Look I'm not going to sit here and argue with you ad nauseum. So, let me be very clear: You can either find more productive things to do with your time, or I and some of my fellow administrators will be proposing that you be completely topic banned from anything to do with religion. Your choice, your consequences. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. I had Milgram on my watchlist for ages and Macon shows up after I edit there. I ask you to read the talk page before you make pronouncments of edits. Read the antagonism against myself and User:Bus stop. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

They're doing the same and with great ignorance at Talk:Joe Biden.--TMCk (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

so you're confirming that questioning religion in infoboxes is only allowed for certain religions? What exactly am I doing wrong at Biden? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't help you with your pointy disruption but maybe a block could.--TMCk (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"Hillary Clinton speeches", which is part of the Clinton campaign website says, "She addressed the congregation and spoke about her upbringing in the Methodist Church describing herself as “Methodist both by birth and by choice.” The Clintons were members of the Foundry United Methodist Church during President Clinton’s terms as president."[7] Chelsea's wedding was co-officiated by a rabbi and a Methodist minister.[8] According to The Observer, the minister counts the Clintons as his parishioners in Westchester and officiated over Hillary's mother's funeral.[9] Professor Paul Kengor says that Clinton "is in lockstep with the United Methodist Church on almost all issues."[10] TFD (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, any uninvolved editor could archive this per WP:SNOW. I can't imagine an issue in less need of further discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I guess this and the related thread at talk Biden can be closed now. No need to waste more time.--TMCk (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Also, each case is separate and needs to be discussed in its own article. This case is the clearest example of where religious affiliation is unambiguous - a person who is a practicing member of a congregation and subscribes to their religious views. TFD (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)