Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Semi-protected edit request on 29 Dec

change "She was the first woman to win the popular vote in an American presidential election, which she lost to Donald Trump." To "she was the first woman to win the popular vote in an American presidential election but lost the votes of the electoral college, whom she won the second place in.' Quadmuffs (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Not an improvement, the proposed text makes the situation less clear and less grammatical. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

Viejotopo (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

En la pagina de Hillary Clinton se dice en la versión en castellano: "es un político americano, diplomático, abogado , escritor y orador público". En castellano debería poner: "es una política americana, diplomática, abogada, escritora y oradora pública".

 Not done This is the talk page of the English Wikipedia article on Hillary Clinton. As the Spanish article is not under any protection, you can apply any grammar fixes yourself at es:Hillary Clinton. AngryHarpy‍^talk 13:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove Donald Trump from lead

I would like to establish consensus for removing Donald Trump from the lead, changing “She was the first woman to win the popular vote in an American presidential election, which she lost to Donald Trump” to something along the lines of “She was the first woman to win the popular vote in an American presidential election, although she lost the electoral college.”

I feel that including Donald Trump in the lead diminishes the importance of her significant contributions and achievements—there is much more to Hillary Clinton than her loss to Mr. Trump. Additionally, any viewer can simply refer to the section regarding the 2016 election to learn more about the election and to learn that her loss was to Mr. Trump.

Further, there is very mixed precedent for including the name of the losing candidate’s opponent within the lead section for past presidential elections, although it appears that precedent for recent elections is to not include the name, i.e., Mitt Romney, Al Gore, George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, etc. In fact, Mr. Trump’s article does not mention his loss to Joe Biden.

In anticipation of receiving pushback for the change with regard to other editors stating Mr. Trump’s name should remain in the lead due to the significance of the 2016 election, I would counter that the 2000 and 2020 elections were arguably even more significant.

Let’s not diminish the achievements and significant contributions of this woman. Otherwise, we need to begin including the name of the winning opponent in the lead for every single losing presidential candidate.

Thank you. thirsty 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense - sounds good to me. Shearonink (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think this a big problem, but I guess remove it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with removing it from lede paragraph 1, the whole sentence is redundant with lede paragraph 4. Trump should not be mentioned twice for the same thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

National Popular Vote

"She was the first woman to win the popular vote in an American presidential election"

So what? We don't elect Presidents by (national) popular vote in the United States. Why mention it? Tpkatsa (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight on her religious beliefs

There is an entire section on her religious views. This is unusual since Clinton isn't notable for her beliefs. I say remove it and mention, in a sentence or 2, she's lifelong Methodist somewhere in the early section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ordering of offices in infobox

KidAd has reordered the positions in the infobox chronologically, placing "Chancellor of Queen's University Belfast" at the top. They've self-reverted pending the outcome of this discussion. I believe that the current configuration, in which the positions are ordered by importance, is preferable per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. How should the offices be ordered: chronologically, or by importance? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The current infobox structuring should remain in place when it is agreed upon that the date of January 2, 2020 occurred after the periods of 1993 to 2001, 2001 to 2009, and 2009 to 2013. KidAd talk 03:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

KidAd, why? I've given MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE to support my position. Is there a guideline that states these offices must be ordered chronologically? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357, where in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE does it state that time passes non-linearly? I fail to see how MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE supports your argument at all. KidAd talk 03:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

KidAd, I have not stated that time passes non-linearly. Your sarcastic comment is insulting and borderline WP:UNCIVIL. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357, my "sarcastic comment" is a perfectly-valid point that you have failed to address. Why order the infobox non-linearly? You haven't explained any potential reasoning. KidAd talk 03:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

KidAd, my argument is obviously not that "time passes non-linearly". That's insane. My argument is that the most relevant positions for the infobox are the ones of greatest importance. I think it's most useful to the readers to have the positions of greatest prominence at the top. That's not saying that time is non-linear. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It certainly is insane. Glad we can agree on that. Ordering the infobox non-linearly will only confuse readers. KidAd talk 03:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

No, your comment about me supposedly saying time passes non-linearly is what I'm calling insane. I am not agreeing with you. Stop trying to WP:GASLIGHT me. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I would remove it from the info-box as not significant. University chancellors in Commonwealth countries is a figurehead position and more of an honor than anything. It's not as if she is actually living in Belfast or doing anything at the university. TFD (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

^ I support this more than ordering the infobox non-linearly. KidAd talk 04:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree, let's just remove it. It's not really even a political office. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with removing it completely. I also am not sure whether or not to leave it first. It seems to be common practice to include University chancellor/president positions in infoboxes though. See governors such as Dannel Malloy and Mitch Daniels. SecretName101 (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but sometimes we do not list in order of chronology when one office is much higher than the others. But even then, that seems to be done retroactive, when they no longer hold any of the offices, and not while they are an incumbent. But, at other times, it seems we stick to conology, even when an office is much higher than others subsequently held. SecretName101 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that in the U.S., the chancellor is a full time officer of the university, while in Commonwealth countries that position is held by the vice-chancellor (often called the president) and the chancellor is a figurehead position. Ian Greer for example is the vice-chancellor and president of Queen's University Belfast. Unlike the chancellor, he has an office there, staff report to him and he is paid for his work. High profile people like Clinton can hold multiple chancellorships and non-executive positions in numerous organizations. Clinton was chairman of the New World Foundation, the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession and the Children's Defense Fund, yet none of these are in the info-box. TFD (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

While several articles about living persons mention British Empire and Commonwealth chancellorships in the infobox, most historical ones do not. For example, Oliver Cromwell, Richard Cromwell, Lord North, the Duke of Wellington, Lord Salisbury, Lord Curzon and Harold Macmillan were Chancellors of the University of Oxford, but it is not mentioned in their info-boxes. However it has been added for Roy Jenkins and Chris Patten. TFD (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Change the current portrait to her official portrait as United States secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Frevangelion (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That photo is already in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand that, but nearly every other politician of similar rank has their official portrait from when they were in office, with the bizarre exception of Hillary Clinton and Walter Mondale. Why the differing standards? Frevangelion (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the current photo is used due to the significance of her 2016 presidential campaign, and, for that reason, I think it should remain. thirsty 22:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

New Book article

She announced today that she is releasing a the book State of Terror on October 12. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Photo Change Consensus

I was going through the Commons photos of Hillary. I came across this photo

Hillary in 2016

I think it is an HD photo with a clear shot of her looking directly into the camera instead of the almost side profile we have now. It is more straightforward of a shot while being from the same year as the one in place now and the same if not more HD. Let me know your thoughts! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra What are your thoughts my friend? Elvisisalive95 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Welp, she looks like a pregnant gerbil. This one is less unflattering than the one on the article right now. I guess I'm the only one creeped out by the one offered here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra ^{( Buttinsky)} -esque, without a doubt! Haha. Sounds good to me. Thank you! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus? Me snarking over two oocky pictures is not consensus. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User: Deepfriedokra My apologies, the “this one is less unflattering than the one in the article” and no one else chiming in led me to believe everyone was ok with that change. If it needs to be reverted so be it! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you'll need more than one person affirming a change. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra Ok! My mistake. User:Sdkb Could you join in to confirm the change of the Hillary photo? Elvisisalive95 (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:SecretName101 Hello! Could you be the second person needed to confirm the photo change please? Take care for now Elvisisalive95 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elvisisalive95: You'd need more than two people on an article like this (well trafficked, featured article). Would require broader agreement than that in order to reach a proper consensus. There have been many talks about the image used over the years. I personally see no problem with the current image. SecretName101 (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

User:SecretName101 Makes total sense! I posted this in hopes more people would have chimed in, but thought sometimes “no news, is good news” . I agree more people should concur. And it’s not that I have a problem with this one other than it being of a profile. I feel that the one I changed it to was better though, a more portrait style photograph of equal if not better quality! Since the lead image is the first thing to catch the reader's eye. It felt like the better option! Let me know your thoughts! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please understand that consensus does not mean agreement by one or two people, and needs some time to pass - not 3 days - so more people can consider and discuss a potential change. My view on this, as a 14 year editor of this article, is the photo you propose is not a better representation of her than what is currently in the article, so I am not in favor of this change. I will point out that the usual practice here would be to use an official portrait from the last office held - Secretary of State for her - but in this case since her subsequent career development as Presidential candidate is certainly more significant than any of her previous positions, using a photo from the 2016 campaign seems to me to be the right decision. If there is an official campaign portrait that meets our guidelines for use I'd be interested in reviewing it - but this photo you suggest is not it and arguably not at all an improvement. Appreciate your input, but we do try to keep this article as stable as possible, so encourage discussion and consensus before significant changes are made, and the top photo is certainly significant. Tvoz/talk 18:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Tvoz Hello! I should’ve done more research on the true definition of a consensus on Wikipedia. For that I apologize like I stated earlier in this thread. The photo I proposed is also from the 2016 campaign, Hillary was speaking with supporters at her campaign rally at the Intramural Fields at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona as the photo details stated. In my mind, this photo on the commons that I proposed more accurately shows what Hillary Clinton looks like. We have a clear view of her entire face as opposed to a distant side profile shot that is in place now. Obviously you being on here for as long as you have and your dedication to this page I will agree with your thoughts if you feel it’s better. Thanks for discussing!  Thanks Elvisisalive95 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

No ownership implied by my comment, just an historic view of the article. No apology needed. Tvoz/talk 21:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elvisisalive95: Personally, I think the current photo is significantly better than the photo you’ve proposed. I think the overall quality of the photo is dramatically less, i.e., the microphone covering a quarter of the photo and all of her torso. Additionally, the proposed photo is actually of less quality and in much lower definition (994 x 1,310) than the original (2,245 x 2,995). I’m happy to see a new photo be suggested; however, I don’t think this one is it. For those reasons, my vote is no. Take care, stay safe!

thirsty 22:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Closed Elvisisalive95 (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elvisisalive95: Is it closed? Why? SecretName101 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"Hillary Diane Rodham Clinotn" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hillary Diane Rodham Clinotn. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 14#Hillary Diane Rodham Clinotn until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

pingas

sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.238.24 (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Rodham senior thesis (2nd nomination)

FYI, I have proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Rodham senior thesis (2nd nomination) to break out the "early life" section into an Early life and career of Hillary Clinton article (similar to those already existing for Obama, Biden, and dozens of other historical figures) and merge the thesis there. Even if that is not the outcome of the deletion discussion, I would still support such a split of the section. BD2412 T 04:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"Post-2016 election activities" section

This section seems to be virtually a news ticker, and is actually longer than the section on her 2016 presidential campaign! There needs to be a little bit of perspective as to what activities are actually notable. I'm going to be bold and remove some of the more trivial content. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2021

Hello, According to the yearbook for each year Ms Clinton was at college she was never named validictorian. This can be verified by asking for the name from the college library for the year in dispute. They will look it up for you or you can travel there as I did. Thank you. 2603:9000:CB09:BAB4:5D5F:B3CF:A3A5:D8C7 (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Bias

This page is not a forum for discussing general concerns about Wikipedia's editorial standards
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Crazy how I first looked up congress woman, Marjorie Taylor Greene & Donald John Trump on Wikipedia and was very harsh on those individuals. Though I'm unbothered by fake "facts" of those two individuals, I found it very funny, suspicious & concerning that when I searched Hillary Rodham Clinton, Wikipedia framed her to be the most gracious person on Earth let alone in U.S. politics when she's accused of the equivalent and even debatably worse stuff compared to the two (Marjorie Greene & Donald Trump). Why is that, Wiki? I've known most my life that you're completely bias growing up in school but, why make that blatantly obvious when you're supposed to be objective and factual? Making that track record worse don't you think? Instead of insinuating Republicans (and even democrats) in bad light (though let's face it, democrats aren't held to the same standard let alone accountable) & presenting conspiracy's as fact (ex: Robert Mueller investigation being indefinite of "Russian Collusion", labeling exclusively Republicans as anti-semitic w/ no evidence, labeling Republicans as white supremacist (when Republicans have been known for over two centuries in a half of fighting against slavery, freeing the slaves & combat against the KKK) and literally every single bad thing that exists in the book) stick to what we, the public know, factually speaking & when you go off road to certain things/topics that most people do not know of, make sure you have real evidence to back that up from widely known unbiased sources. Grow up, Wiki. It's about that time. 2601:483:302:1890:109E:76B1:5F0F:8B0F (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Crazy how Marjorie Taylor Green and Donald Trump are not the same person as Hillary Clinton, and so have different biographies. BTW, inciting a riot inside the U.S. Capitol is not the same as her emails. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC) "Though I'm unbothered by fake "facts" of those two individuals" You are not bothered that these two are known for spreading lies and misinformation? Dimadick (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC) A couple of things... "You're" vs. "your" (You are - subject & intransitive verb. Your - possessive.) Two and a half centuries (vs. two centuries in a half) meaning 250 years. Capitalizing one political party (Republican) vs not capitalizing the other (democrat). Also, what is contained in Wikipedia articles is what reliable sources have reported and that is what you will see in Wikipedia. Wikipedia leaves it up to the reader to decide by citing its sources so readers can verify statements in the articles. "False facts"?...not so much. Re: Greene's positions - QAnon supporter/Forbes article cited in the Greene WP article, Racist/white surpemacist...Politico's report on Greene's racist videos - also cited in the Greene WP article, anti-Semitic with no evidence? well there's this:Greene called a Jew a Nazi, this: where Greene promoted antisemitic conspiracies both of which are cited in the Greene article plus much more. Re: Wikipedia somehow framing Secretary Clinton being "the most gracious person on Earth"? - see her article's section on email controversy, her article's section on Benghazi, United States House Select Committee on Benghazi, Hillary Clinton email controversy, Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy etc. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton cannery experience

The portion that discusses Hillary Clinton's cannery experience is misleading. The article states that she worked "sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which fired her and shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthy conditions)." The implication in the article is that the cannery shut down overnight due to her health condition complaints, but this is not true. It is possible that she was fired after complaining, but the cannery remained open until the end of the summer, which was nearing anyway, as was typical practice for small canneries. The cannery did not reopen the following year, but this was not unusual for small canneries in Valdez at the time.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=322499468949954 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.160.88 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a forum

This page is not a forum for right-wing talking points and insane obsessions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Left off the part where she deleted e-mails, got people killed in bengazazi and spyed on Trump. 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:59 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC) At least spell "Benghazi" right. -Thwgoodguyas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodguyas (talk • contribs) 21:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

FA sweeps

There are some issues with the FA criteria:

• At over 17,000 words (with additional long notes), the article does not succeed in remaining concise and appropriately using summary style. Note, when it was promoted in 2014, the article was much shorter although still too long IMO.
• Similar to the Obama article the "Post-2016 election activities" is excessively long and needs cleanup
• Overreliance on news sources, rather than scholarly or otherwise retrospective sources that would help show WP:DUE. There's a massive number of sources on Google Scholar
• There is some uncited text

See the recent FAR for Obama for an idea what might be required for the article to maintain FA status. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe pinged me on this, for which I am appreciative. I retired from working on this article during 2015/2016, so I cannot speak to how it is today. But I can address a couple of points that Buidhe raises:

• It was always my practice to use scholarly, book, and retrospective sources more than news sources. If you scan the references at the end-of-2014 version that Buildhe links to, you'll see a huge number of cites to books – some written by reporters, but some also by academics such as the Troy book and the Burns book. And the "Cultural and political image" section in that version is chock full of scholarly analysis from journal articles, with many of the academics attributed by name in the text (alas that's all since been lopped off the main article, apparently).
• The length of the article comes with the territory when you have a subject with a long career that encompasses several completely different kinds of roles and positions, and also when you have a subject who has had many accomplishments and 'firsts' but also is a polarizing figure who has been embroiled in many controversial episodes. To treat all that evenly, to include the good the bad the ugly and the neutral, takes space.
• WP:SUMMARY is a fine goal in some areas, but it just doesn't work for biographical subarticles. Here is a page views chart for 2022 so far. The main article gets lots of views and the three subarticles are pretty much flatlines at zero. The same pattern holds for other biographical subjects and has held for over a decade of looking at the numbers: there is always a 100:1-to-500:1 ratio in views between the main article and biographical subarticles. What that means is that moving something out of the main article is just about tantamount to deleting it, since 99 percent of readers will never see it.

In any case, those are my thoughts on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• The correct version to evaluate in terms of the FA criteria is the current article version, which relies heavily on news sources with only a minority of citations to scholarly articles and books.
• Yes, most people don't read sub-articles, but who reads through a 17,000+ word article either? Studies have shown that most visitors never scroll past the lead. Longer is not better, and more conciseness helps the reader understand the main points without being bogged down in excessive detail. There is no reason why biographies should be exempted from WP:LENGTH and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I agree that it can be challenging to treat a complex topic concisely, but even getting it back down to the length it was in 2014 would greatly improve readability. (t · c) buidhe 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

My two cents as another past major contributor and editor of this article - I completely agree with Wasted Time R on this. The length and detail of this particular biography is essential, as she is a unique individual in that her life spans several major careers that are significant and need to be covered in the main article in order to not give short shrift to any of them, or to our readers. Right, maybe people don't read a 17K word article from top to bottom, but subarticles are just not read at all. Guidelines are fine, but they are not hard and fast rules and by definition cannot and should not always be applied to every article - this one needs leeway regarding length and style. And I don't at all see how we can go by the length of the 2014 version - obviously she had another major career development after that, arguably the most important, and she continues to be a major, influential figure with an ongoing career, controversies, and accomplishments. In fact in a rough comparison George W. Bush's post-presidency sections (about 4 screens) are considerably longer than this article's post-2016 sections (a little over 2 screens). It goes with the territory. To get this to 2014 size would mean we'd have to eliminate parts of the 2014 article to accommodate the subsequent career and that is not realistic or practical or advisable, and would do damage to the subject. So I think we should not attempt to cut this down in any major way in pursuit of an ideal about readability because the more important metric is scope and fairness to the subject. Sometimes rules and guidelines shouldn't be followed. Tvoz/talk 20:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hillary Diane Clinton?

Is her name Hillary Diane Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton? cookie monster 755 23:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• See Public image of Hillary Clinton#Public name usage. So far as I am aware, the subject never legally removed or otherwise renouced her given middle name, so if anything she would be Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (except that she seems to have stopped using Rodham, which was also never legally adopted as part of her name). BD2412 T 03:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  She did not have to "legally adopt" her birth name - it is the name she continued to use after her marriage for many years, and only started using Clinton for reasons to do with Arkansas politics. She still signs her name as Hillary Rodham Clinton - which many of us thought and still think should be the name of this article - but that's a conversation for another time. Tvoz/talk 05:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  It would be interesting to see if there is any evidence of a reversion to that usage following the 2016 election. An Ngram seems to suggest not. BD2412 T 06:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  If anything, it looks like usage of "Hillary Clinton" has only accelerated since the previous RM discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Dedicated Page for Planned Hillary Clinton Transition

I've also asked this in the Presidential Transition talk page as well, just an FYI Should there be a dedicated page for the planned Hillary Clinton 2016 transition? There is a lot of information out there for what she was planning, personnel, that sort of thing; enough for an article. It could be useful either on its own or in regards to a series of "planned" transitions that never were (i.e. Romney '12, Gore '00). Perhaps as a comparison to what occurred with the Trump transition? Bookworm2490 (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Lede noting popular vote “asterisk”

Not relevant enough for the lede. US campaigns are not conducted with the goal of turning people out in partisan states (CA, NY, AL, TX in 2016, etc). It would be like saying that despite the Heat winning a 7 game series against the Spurs in 2013, the Spurs scored more total points, ignoring the fact that the Heat benched their starters in blowouts and it wasn’t actually the goal of the series.

Seems to me like a case of making Clinton appear in a more favorable light.

Instead, that line should simply read that Clinton went on to lose the election to Trump, which is of course how it is remembered by almost all people. @MelbourneStar Goblintear (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Goblintear: On Wikpedia, we go by significant coverage and where published reliable sources take us. Re Hillary Clinton's popular vote victory but presidential loss overall, significant coverage focused on the former as well as the latter. Irrespective of your opinion, the Popular vote in a U.S. Presidential election exists and gains considerable attention by reliable sources, and hence that's what we reflect. Re "Seems to me like a case of making Clinton appear in a more favorable light", I'm not sure how you've managed to deduce that from the sentence when read in whole. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but it is mentioned twice in the lead, in the first and fourth paragraph, which is perhaps not needed. I do think we should mention that she won popular vote in the lead, but probably only the second time in the fourth paragraph. Maybe the first time we can keep it short and just say she won the nomination and lost the election to trump, and then in the fourth paragraph give the details: first woman nominated, won the popular vote, ran with Tim Kaine, etc. So for example:

First paragraph: A member of the Democratic Party, she was the party's nominee for president in the 2016 presidential election, which she lost to Donald Trump.

Fourth paragraph: Clinton made a second presidential run in 2016. She became the first woman to win a presidential nomination by a major U.S. political party after winning the Democratic nomination, and ran in the general election with Virginia senator Tim Kaine as her running mate. Clinton lost the presidential election to Republican opponent Donald Trump in the Electoral College, despite winning a plurality of the popular vote.

@Goblintear @MelbourneStar: How does that sound? Endwise (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thumbs up Goblintear (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

My problem isn’t that the popular vote is mentioned, it’s that it’s the lede, mentioned in the sentence even before the fact that she lost. Let’s go with your edit. Goblintear (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Coming in a little late here, sorry, but a bit more input before implementing a change to the lede I think is our usual practice. While like MelbourneStar I do not agree with the original edit, I am mostly ok with Endwise's solution - except for two things: First, being the first woman nominated is historically and personally for her life bio the most significant aspect of her nomination and should be in the first paragraph that summarizes her life, just as it is in Sandra Day O'Connor's bio, for example. Second, by the same logic, we do not need to mention Trump in that first paragraph - that's appropriate in the 4th paragraph of the intro where it now is. So I propose returning the last sentence of the first summarizing graf to:

A member of the Democratic Party, she was the party's nominee for president in the 2016 presidential election, becoming the first woman to win a presidential nomination by a major U.S. political party. Tvoz/talk 22:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I was largely just copying what was in other such articles: Mitt Romney: was the Republican Party's nominee for president of the United States in the 2012 election, losing to the then incumbent president, Barack Obama, John McCain: was the Republican nominee for president of the United States in the 2008 election, which he lost to Barack Obama, John Kerry: was the Democratic nominee for President of the United States in the 2004 election, losing to incumbent President George W. Bush., etc. I think this is the style because it's kind of "burying the lede" to not mention the outcome of the election when you mention they were a nominee.

I had a look at Encyclopedia Britannica, and they do mention that she was the first woman to win a presidential nomination in the opening paragraph. Maybe we could mention that she was the first woman and the outcome of election in the opening paragraph? Endwise (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at this more closely: If we mention the outcome of the election in the first graf, it is disingenuous to say she was defeated without that clarification of the popular vote - which is why in the last round I left the result out of the first graf in order to compromise with your edit. But I still think my original (1) below is best, with the first woman and a clear statement of the outcome.

Further, there's no clear pattern or requirement for the first graf regarding naming the opponent: Bob Dole, Barry Goldwater, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford,George H.W. Bush - none of those mention who defeated them in the first paragraph and it is not the most significant point.

What you're not addressing is that this is the biography of her whole life, and the first shorthand summary graf of the intro should reflect the most significant things in her life story which regarding 2016 are that she is the first woman to be nominated and while losing the election, she did win more many votes than her opponent - as I say, I am fine with including the loss as you want, but only if it's clarified. The intro goes on to explain it further, as is the custom for summary intros, and the article itself of course does so in detail. So if you want the outcome mentioned in the first graf, which I can agree with, I think we must clarify it there as (1). That's the reality, that's its significance to her life and to history. Otherwise, let's go back to (2) which was my compromise but in fact I don't think is the best way out. I have not made the change while this is under discussion - but I do object to what is in the article now which was edited in kind of quickly so would like to resolve this - perhaps MelbourneStar☆ can weigh in too.

(1) A member of the Democratic Party, she was the party's nominee for president in the 2016 presidential election, becoming the first woman to win a presidential nomination by a major U.S. political party; Clinton won the popular vote in the election, but lost the Electoral College vote and thereby lost the presidential election.

(2) A member of the Democratic Party, she was the party's nominee for president in the 2016 presidential election, becoming the first woman to win a presidential nomination by a major U.S. political party.

Tvoz/talk 21:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A month later with no further discussion, I moved and edited material that is central to her whole life bio to first graf from later in the intro. Tvoz/talk 19:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. There are five times in US history that the popular vote leader did not win the presidency: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016. Now that it has been restored to Hillary's lead, is now mentioned in the leads of all five. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Debunked Trump-Alfa Bank connection

I've read the Bloomberg article and I do see several problems with the edits trying to include it. First off, X-Editor added this paragraph, which was reverted, and then X-Editor just reverted the undo 5 minutes after. That is edit warring and edit-warred in violation of the active arbitration enforcement of this page. X-Editor, if you violate the 24-hr BRD cycle again, you will likely be blocked for it.

As for the edit itself, X-Editor's content starts with the WP:WEASELy "it was revealed", which MelbourneStar rightly called out for the WP:VOICE issue. Another issue with it is that it was put in "Post-2016 election activities". Hillary signing off on it was a 2016 campaign event, and not "post-2016". Hillary's article otherwise makes no mention of Alfa Bank, making this edit clearly WP:UNDUE. Beyond that, making the focus Mook's court testimony from the ongoing Michael Sussmann trial has the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM problem. If this is important enough to add, it would need to be in the 2016 election section. And I don't think that this is to be included here. Mook is saying that Hillary wanted to tie Trump to Alfa Bank during the 2016 campaign. And? This is what politicians do in campaigns. They attack their opponents, sometimes justly and sometimes unjustly. So why add it here? It seems relevant for Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign perhaps, but not Hillary's high-level biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added it to her 2016 campaign page, which is far more relevant. I also apologize for violating the BRD cycle. X-Editor (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Including it in the campaign page for now, and waiting a couple weeks to get a better assessment of the overall WP:DUE-ness of this for her biography doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Endwise (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Addressing Clinton’s comments regarding the 2016 election.

I find myself more than a little surprised that there is no mention of HRC’s statements post the 2016 Election disputing the legitimacy of the election.

Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’

“You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,” Clinton said, alluding to Russia’s election interference efforts.

This a big deal. The 2016 Democratic nominee, who won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, is expressly leaving open the possibility that she would pursue legal action to invalidate the last presidential election.

Hillary Clinton dismissed Donald Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired on Sunday.

The question here is why has this information been omitted. HRC made no secret that she felt the election had been stolen from her and her opponent was an illegitimate President. Is this some kind of selective memory at work? Hillary Clinton spent months telling anyone who would listen that the election had been stolen, it needs to be reflected in the "Post-2016 election activities" especially in light of events since the 2016 Election.

What Happened: The long list of who Hillary Clinton blames — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps this is some kind of selective reading at work? Hillary_Clinton#Comments_on_President_Trump → "On September 29, 2019, in an interview with CBS News Sunday Morning, Clinton described Trump as a "threat" to the country's standing in the world; an "illegitimate president", despite having won the election; and a "corrupt human tornado". (emphasis mine). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Funny, I’m not seeing the comments about an election “being stolen” which are statements directly attributable to Clinton. Are you seeing them? Statements along those lines SHOULD be in the article and not buried at the bottom of a paragraph as something of an afterthought. If her opponent is going to be called out for propagating ‘The Big Lie’ not giving an equal prominence to Clinton’s comments when they were persistent throughout her opponents term in office is clear bias. Look at the last link particularly, there was a prolonged effort on the part of Clinton (and many others) to deny the results of the Presidential Election of 2016 and cast doubt on results. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Your comments re Trump's big lie are not only irrelevant here (see WP:OTHERCRAP) but also a false equivalence; whilst Trump personally sought legal recourse through the courts and used his office to investigate his claims, Clinton did not. Also, I'm pretty sure the Big Lie contributed to 2021 United States Capitol attack and resulted in the Second impeachment of Donald Trump. So yes, hilarious indeed, feel free to try and convince someone else about what's already written in the article, but you believe does not compare to what's written about Trump's big lie and therefore we must all be biased including this Australian. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s not false equivalence at all, Hillary Clinton not only said that the election was stolen from her (these are direct quotes confirming this from WP:RS apparently you can’t be bothered to read) she also directed her underlings to spread disinformation about her opponent during the campaign:

[1]https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi/index.html

That’s another WP:RS for you, it’s about holding everyone to the same standard and is just another reason why this article needs to be updated to reflect it with equal emphasis on Cliton’s actions. By the way, regarding legal challenges by Clinton, you’re wrong - “The Clinton campaign chose not to exercise its own right to call for a recount after failing to find compelling evidence of voter fraud or result manipulation. But now that a recount has been initiated, her camp has decided to participate “in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides.” Whatever the outcome, what are the chances that the recount triggers voting reforms?”

Feel free to try and convince someone else that you are unbiased. Understand, impeachment as you put it was nothing more than a dog and pony show, a political exercise which only happened because the Democrats controlled the House. As a matter of fact such shenanigans started the day the former President was inaugurated: [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/

71.190.233.44 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hillary conceded the day after the 2016 election. Trump didn't concede in 2020, only making a statement where he acknowledged that he wouldn't serve a second term the day after he led a failed coup attempt at the Capitol. The Hillary campaign pushing the Alfa Bank connection was during the campaign and totally within normal limits of campaigning. Hillary had no part in efforts to impeach Trump. That Washington Post article doesn't mention her. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You’re totally ignoring continued statements by Clinton and cited by reliable sources throughout the four years of the former President’s term in office casting doubts on the outcome and validity of the election in 2016 to the point of actually saying it had been stolen. She directed staff to spread disinformation during the campaign and afterward perpetuated a lie that the election was not legitimate. You can make all the excuse you want but that DID happen. You are applying two totally different standards for essentially the same behavior. You may not like it but it’s what happened and WP:RS cite it and it should be given more prominence in the article.

Your bias is showing by even calling what happened on January 6th a failed coup. As a matter of fact the hyperventilating regarding January 6th shows an amazing lack of knowledge when it comes to history - see https://history.house.gov/Oral-History/Events/1954-Shooting/ and https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-1932-bonus-army.htm so “worst attack on democracy since Civil War" is hyperbole to say the least. 1,200 unarmed people who did not fire a single shot is hardly a coup and while there were a good number of nutters floating around the building there were also a number of people just wandering around. But this is a digression from the subject at hand – Clinton’s actions were to consistently undermine the results of the election and was supported by other Democrats (Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts. — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) May 16, 2017 Turning a blind eye to it is more than a little disingenuous. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. Recounts happen quite routinely in politics. The onus is on you to persuade others to your point of view, which is definitely bordering POV-pushing and not constructive at this stage; so perhaps consider your own actions before mislabelling others as biased (it doesn't look like it's helping your cause). Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you ignore the statements by Clinton the election was stolen from her. The citations from the WP:RS speak for themselves. That you would assert it is POV pushing as you call it is WP:BADFAITH and WP:CHERRYPICKING. This has more to do with establishing consistent standards when documenting the actions of people. I have seen nothing in this dialogue disputing any of the sources being cited, I have however seen attempts to downplay the behavior in the face of evidence to the contrary. I don’t have a ‘case’ other than having an expectation rules apply to all equally. When a losing candidate runs around for several years making statements ‘You can have the election stolen from you,’ Hillary Clinton warns 2020 Democrats is no less damaging to a nation’s trust in the electoral process than what her opponent has done. It is something that should be significantly noted in this article. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Once again, I invite you to consider your own bad faith, especially labelling other editors who disagree with you as "biased" and opening this thread with "selective memory at work". You can cite all the sources you want, Clinton disputing the Trump's presidency is already mentioned, and the comparisons to Trump's Big Lie are a false equivalence. Your comparisons are no different to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; if you have an issue with Trump's Big Lie being incorporated in his article, you're free to open a discussion about it on his article, but this article's talk page is for improving this article. Re "I don’t have a ‘case’ other than having an expectation rules apply to all equally. When a losing candidate runs around for several years making statements ‘You can have the election stolen from you,’ Hillary Clinton warns 2020 Democrats is no less damaging to a nation’s trust in the electoral process than what her opponent has done. It is something that should be significantly noted in this article" -- confer with WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Feel free to not WP:LISTEN and try convince someone else, but because of the weak rationale you're making, the comparisons to other people/articles (which is irrelevant to this article), and your battleground behaviour – you're not going to convince me, and I'm out. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Clinton’s disputing Trump’s Presidency is mentioned as no more than an afterthought in this article and the only reason ‘The Big Lie’ comes up at all is because CLinton’s comments are not being giving equal weight or focus. While you might like to say it’s false equivalence that is far from the case since Clinton’s continued comments on the subject had the same impact on casting doubts about the integrity of US Elections. Providing favorable articles for politicians on the basis of their party affiliation is not presenting a WP:NPOV and when an editor makes a statement indicating their clear bias along the lines of ‘the day after he led a failed coup‘ it should be challenged. I have no doubt about convincing you but it’s not a question of weak rational as much as it is a sliding scale being applied. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Former GOP congressman: Jan. 6 was an "attempted coup" by Trump Trump attempt at a coup to be a focus of U.S. House hearings, lawmaker Raskin says Donald Trump's hands are all over the coup attempt I am not "biased" in pointing out that January 6 was a coup attempt. Reliable sources suggest so as well. On the other hand, Hillary pointed out that James Comey dropped an October surprise in a way that likely did throw the election to Trump. And then there's the DNC hack and "Russia if you're listening". Hillary post-2016 election and Trump post-2020 election are not at all comparable, other than they both lost. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

First off, let’s take the subjective mouthings of people out of the equation: https://www.britannica.com/topic/coup-detat, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup and even here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat. I’m not seeing where anything was successful but since you led with it, I thought to address it first. Also, the citations you point to are opinions and nothing more. As a matter of course, opinion pieces are NOT considered WP:RS. A personal aside, I wouldn’t take anything Jaime Raskin has to say on the subject at all seriously given his own history, conflict of interest and the fact that his wife had to withdraw from consideration of the post she was nominated for - again, this is secondary to the point being made. Here, HRC pointedly on more than one occasion said the election was STOLEN from her, those are her words. She fed fuel to the fire undermining the legitimacy of the 2016 election after it had concluded, it SHOULD be significantly noted. You may not like it but those are in fact HRC’s words. Since you bring it up though, it was the CONTENT of those emails which impacted HRC as a candidate and in light of the earlier issues regarding use of a private email server and the willful destruction of evidence. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/john-podesta-wikileaks-hacked-emails-229304 I realize you hold a dramatically different point of view here, the citations I’ve given are all from WP:RS and in HRC’s own words. While I respect your right to an opinion I’m still going to have to disagree with you here. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"Hillary Clintom" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hillary Clintom and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 28#Hillary Clintom until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Gay Daniels White

Just wondering Frank Durward White on this is called Gay Daniels White, I feel like this isn't correct as nowhere else does it say this? 2A00:23C7:8084:D201:1AF6:2500:D776:FD3B (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"H. Clinton" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect H. Clinton and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#H. Clinton until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Election denial

I believe it is important to highlite her recent comments that Republicans are actively working to steal the 2024 election. Also her references to Donald Trump being an illegitimate president further provides proof the she is sowing distrust in the political system. 2603:6000:8F01:B022:1028:8F16:8A5:99B9 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

What does Republican efforts to steal the 2024 election have to do with Hillary? That'll be up on 2024 election related pages. What you call "sowing distrust" others call "pointing out the obvious". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This would be better suited for Political positions of Hillary Clinton, unless they gain wider media coverage InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Consistency in name - suggest a full-scale implementation of "Rodham"

Hello: I am a new editor at Wikipedia and delighted to try my hand at this. I am a 20-year veteran of freelance writing. In my work, I am passionate and specific with language. My experience inspired me to implement changes to this article.

I suggest full-scale implementations throughout this article. In all instances, her name should be written exclusively as "Rodham" to distinguish her from Bill Clinton. This change also supports her desire to be independent from her husband. It also aids the reader in understanding whom (Rodham) is doing the action because as written, in many instances, Bill Clinton is confused with Hillary. CreativeIdeaGal (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• It is well-established (as this has been the subject of numerous previous discussions) that the subject's common name is Clinton. Regarding "her desire to be independent from her husband", at one point in the mid-2010s, Clinton herself was contacted about this, and indicated to Wikipedia through her people that she preferred "Clinton". BD2412 T 13:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your commentary. I am new at Wikipedia and don't yet know the etiquette for responding. I am here to learn. CreativeIdeaGal (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The current approach is consistent with Identity. Because your suggestion could apply to many articles, you should discuss it at the Village Pump as a proposed change to the guidelines before discussing it here. TFD (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is fantastic advice. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to learn more and understand the Wikipedia rules. CreativeIdeaGal (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

Hillary Clinton denied the results of the 2016 election, saying on many occasions that the election was stolen, without proof of such claim. 2600:1700:730:1220:9047:A538:B4F3:8DF9 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not true. See here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

To be more thorough, Clinton did concede the election and accept that Trump had been elected president.

But, and perhaps this is the root of their misconception, she did later (2019 or so) voice concern about aspects she alleged helped Trump and which she said made him an "illegitimate president". This included the Russian information/disinformation campaign and voting restrictions in certain states.

If we want to include this context, however, it seems better placed in the 2016 election article (if it is not there already), and/or in the section of Activities of Hillary Clinton subsequent to 2016 discussing her comments on the Trump admin.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/10/10/2016-election-fact-check-democrats-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/69548196007/ SecretName101 (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The "illegitimate president" comment is already in the latter article, but lacks some context. I'll expound there on the context briefly. SecretName101 (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Full name

See diff

I don't understand what these edits are meant to achieve, @SNUGGUMS. "Rodham" is part of her full name, since she kept it after her marriage, and continued to use it extensively as state secretary (she signed "Hillary Rodham Clinton"). What was wrong with the previous version? DFlhb (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no good reason to use "Rodham" more than once in opening sentence. That would be a completely unnecessary redundancy. I'm also open to just having "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" without any "née" afterwards. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Her name is "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton", so saying it's "Hillary Diane Clinton" is simply inaccurate. And "née" is very common, and it's there to clarify that Rodham is her maiden name, not a given name. Why is it redundant, when it provides additional info? DFlhb (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, using "Rodham" more than once doesn't provide anything new that a reader wouldn't obtain by just seeing one instance of it, rendering such repetition pointless. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Then under WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, how are readers supposed to know that's her maiden name, as opposed to a given name? The use of surnames varies across cultures; for example, we're generally explicit in our biographies of people of Asian descent, where it's not necessarily clear to all readers what the person's surname is, or, for more complex names, to clarify what's part of the family name. DFlhb (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

There's always the idea of adding parentheses around a maiden name (which you reverted). It might not be used as often as "née", but is valid, and I recall it once being used on an article for Lucy Washington before that got deleted. You can also see this format implemented in things like these. I could probably find others as well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Having "Rodham" twice in the first sentence does seem redundant to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"First Lady" really? *sigh*

I'd like to understand the reasoning! I hope there's a good explanation. She was secretary of state... her most public role was obviously as a presidential candidate. Chronological order? 😅 then we should say she's a girl from Chicago. 2600:1700:770:D0B0:4D6A:126B:7ABF:364 (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the short description? I just updated it to American politician, diplomat, and former lawyer. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude nice that makes sense. I think it could even include years for her position of "Secretary of State (2009-2013), first lady, and presidential candidate." former lawyer sounds kinda sad compared to her other accomplishments... perhaps IP lawyer instead? I appreciate your quick response! 2600:1700:770:D0B0:4D6A:126B:7ABF:364 (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thing is, we'd have to distinguish that it's the Secretary of State for the United States of America, and the character limit is 60. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

What can be shortened?

Let us discuss and figure out. I feel I'll be accused of bias in abbreviating any details of the email section, but I think an editor with more removed opinions on American politics could hopefully find a way to abbreviate the email section. It has its own dedicated article. SecretName101 (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the detail is already contained in spin-off articles and is excessive to this article. For example. Hillary Clinton#2000 U.S. Senate election says that Mohnihan announced his retirement in November 1998, Charlie Rangel urged Clinton to run for his seat, Clinton bought a house at 15 Old House Lane in Chappaqua, New York, north of New York City, in September 1999, she became the first wife of the president of the United States to be a candidate for elected office, she expected to face Rudy Giuliani - the mayor of New York City - who withdrew in May 2000 after being diagnosed with prostate cancer and information about his failed marriage becoming public and lots more.

How about, "When a NY Senate seat became available, Clinton moved to the state and was elected in 2000?" TFD (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that particular reduction is necessary (minus that the actual address of the home should DEFINITELY be removed for being excessive detail, and also possibly am endangering detail to include as well). SecretName101 (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we perhaps spin-off an article on her legal career? SecretName101 (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps also spin-off an article on her tenure as First Lady of Arkansas. Since she did work in state government at the time, an article focused on those details. Her Arkansas years section runs a little long, but is full of details important to have on the project in order to paint a full portrait of her career and life. SecretName101 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Also spin-off her tenure as First Lady, certainly. SecretName101 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Where was the discussion that resulted in the split? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That was a Wikipedia:Bold move influenced by the already-identified issues with the length of this article. SecretName101 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

How about combining her legal career and First Lady of Arkansas tenure into a single Early career of Hillary Clinton article? BD2412 T 20:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

SecretName101, please leave {{copied}} notes on the talk pages to indicate content spun out for the recent articles. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Shortening the emails section

The previous discussion sputtered out, so I'll try to be more specific here.

Could we discuss ways to shorten the Emails section? I tried doing so last month; putting it as a subsection within her presidential campaign, and focusing on her campaign's reaction to the story (Allen & Parnes), but it's pretty tough. Might try again. The current section is simply too long, and gives that controversy undue prominence. DFlhb (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is a very rough preview for what I propose. Mostly, I added one paragraph at the beginning of that section to explain that the emails & speeches affected her success among primary voters, and a paragraph at the end on the October surprise. Those things belong in the Campaign section, since they were major elements of WP:RS coverage of... her campaign. Not of Clinton in general. The dump-all Foundation, Book, Speeches section just gets turned into a Foundation section, to detail her work there.

Do note this is a rough preview; I actually had a far better version back in December, but didn't submit it, and it's now lost to time. My first paragraph (on her emails) could probably be a fair bit longer, maybe a few sentences; and the words "October surprise" should be mentioned explicitly in my other paragraph.

Any general feedback? Support, oppose? DFlhb (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to be more specific than that as to what the crux of the controversy was. But we definitely need to shorten the section. At the bare-minimum we need to mention that the controversy pertained to the handling of emails by placing them on a private server, the handing-over of emails and deletion of emails, and that it greatly impacted her during her campaign. SecretName101 (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

Secretary of State - Tenure

"As secretary of state, Clinton sought to lead a rehabilitation of the United States' reputation on the world state." CHANGE "world state" to "world stage" Acegikmo21727 (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Bennv123 (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Acegikmo21727 Thank you so much for making this catch! SecretName101 (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Voice file

@Mupper-san: I never noticed how much Hillary Clinton sounds like Barack Obama. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x Yeah, my mistake, I forgot to change the sound file itself. The issue's been fixed now, thankfully.

Mupper-san (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No mention that she is an election denier?

In a 2019 interview with CBS News, Hillary claimed that Trump was an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:8F0:3B0:F96E:D541:FF6F:F2DB (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

She is not an "election denier" since she acknowledged that she lost. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a tremendous difference between asserting that someone happily made use of foreign assets/support to spread disinformation in the successful attempt to gain votes (what Clinton has claimed) and claiming that the official vote counts are all lies and that the voting machines themselves were tampered with or other means of illegal votes (what Trump claims). —OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

She initially acknowledged that she lost, then falsely claimed that the 2016 election was stolen from her. Sources have proven this. Clinton without evidence also blamed sexism on losing the 2016 election. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/16/sexism-did-not-cost-hillary-clinton-the-election/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/dont-forget-hillary-clinton/ https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trumps-denial-second-big-lie-ask-hillary-clinton-rcna55764 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:8F0:3B0:D95C:E7EC:769E:11BC (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

"No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president,” she said. “I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did." Did Trump not benefit from voter suppression, voter purging, and the Wikileaks hack of John Podesta? Where did she say "stolen"? She doesn't, it was the WaPo writer using that word. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

She has claimed that the election was stolen from her. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:8F0:3B0:D95C:E7EC:769E:11BC (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That was a warning to 2020 candidates Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

IP, the narrative that Clinton is an "election denier" is a partisan Republican narrative. Neutral sources overwhelmingly (unanimously?) do not call her that, and therefore it is simply undue in her article. This has been repeatedly brought up on the talk page, for example here and here, and this new discussion will go nowhere given until proper (preferably scholarly) sources assert it. Thanks — DFlhb (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

She said it in 2020. She wasn't talking about the 2020 election, she was talking about her own loss in 2016. From the article "You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,” clearly referring to how she saw her 2016 campaign." https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trumps-denial-second-big-lie-ask-hillary-clinton-rcna55764

@DFlhb - When has National Review, NBC News, Washington Post ever been shown to be biased to Republicans?

IP, Wikipedia will only claim Clinton is an "election denier" if reliable sources themselves explicitly label her that. It doesn't matter how many Clinton quotes you post here, because it would be original research for any of us Wikipedia editors to label her an "election denier" based on our own analysis/interpretation of her direct quotes. Bennv123 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• @2603:7081:8F0:3B0:F96E:D541:FF6F:F2DB: Clinton's remarks which you are referring to are mentioned in their accurate context in Activities of Hillary Clinton subsequent to 2016. There, there is wording that reads: She also described Trump as an "illegitimate president", despite him having won the 2016 presidential election. While recognizing that she had indeed lost to Trump, she said that she considered him "illegitimate" because she asserted that his election victory had been assisted by voting restrictions in certain states and Russian influence efforts.

Petition to apply a different audio file for Secretary Clinton

The current audio file has clapping and audience interruption spread intermitently throughout the audio file and as such doesn't serve as a clear descriptor of Clinton's voice. As such I am petitioning that the audio file be swapped out with the following audio file: File: Hillary Clinton Comments on the Passing of Robert Byrd.ogg This file, in addition to it being from the time of her highest position as Secretary of State, is clear, concise, and is free from any outside interference that might otherwise take from her voice in general. If the audio file is in fact switched out, the date of the audio in question is June 28, 2010. LosPajaros (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

Please decapitalize "Secretary of State" per MOS:JOBTITLES and Talk:United States Secretary of State#Capital Letters. 2001:4451:8209:7B00:29B6:4015:AE3F:F1F (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is there an ancestry tree section?

I've never seen this on a biography of a candidate, and I don't think it matters in this context as she is still a United States Citizen, and US presidents aren't chosen based on ancestry. Vixtani (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd say I have to agree. She does not descend from anyone particularly notable. Zaathras (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Change "She attended Maine East High School" to "She attended Maine South High School"

sources: https://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/blog/2016/07/06/hillary-clintons-high-school-legacy-lives-on-at-maine-south/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/park-ridge/ct-prh-maine-south-election-tl-1103-20161027-story.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/16/413927185/growing-up-in-protected-americana-hillary-clinton-looked-outside-the-cocoon Anne Libby (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lewcm Talk to me! 11:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Priper noun

Her use of a private email server as "Secretary" as in that context it's the specific office and a proper noun 70.187.141.56 (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image - As the hidden comment states...seeking consensus

How about this image -

? It's from 2023 and is more recent than the present image, (which dates from 2016...) Shearonink (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)