This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mouse001 (talk | contribs) at 03:10, 30 December 2015 (→Proposed edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:10, 30 December 2015 by Mouse001 (talk | contribs) (→Proposed edit)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillary Clinton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Was there a dispute about what the article title should be?
A1: Yes. From the early days on it was "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but over the years there were many formal requests for moves to change it to "Hillary Clinton". Discussions found no consensus on the article name until June 2015, when one found consensus and the article was moved to its current title. See the "This page was previously nominated to be moved" box elsewhere on this page for full details and links to the discussions – note some have to be revealed under the "Older discussions" link. There are strong feelings on both sides and discussions get progressively longer and more heated.
Q2: The section on her 2016 presidential campaign leaves out some important things that have happened. What gives?
A2: The main article is tight on space and the presidential campaign section is intentionally brief and kept to what is biographically most relevant. The daughter article Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 has a much fuller treatment of the campaign and is where the greatest level of detail should go, especially anything describing the day-to-day, to-and-fro, ups-and-downs of a campaign.
Q3: This article is POV! It's biased {for, against} her! It reads like it was written by {her PR team, Republican hatchet men}!
A3: Complaints of bias are taken very seriously, but must be accompanied by specific areas of concern or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements do not help editors. Edits that add {{pov}} tags without providing a detailed explanation on the talk page will likely be reverted.
Q4: Where is the article or section that lists her controversies?
A4: There isn't one. All controversial material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article (including sometimes in Notes or footnotes) and in the various daughter articles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism and also raises significant WP:BLP concerns. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment – see here – and the same was done for other politicians' articles, including all the 2012 and 2016 candidates. This approach was also confirmed by the results of this AfD and this AfD.
Q5: Something in the lead section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{citation needed}} tag on it.
A5: This article, like many others on Misplaced Pages, uses the approach of no citations in the lead section, as everything in the lead should be found in the body of the article, along with its citation. See guideline: MOS:LEADCITE.
|
 | Hillary Clinton is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Hillary Rodham ClintonPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 7, 2015. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
hypothryoidism
please put in a reference to her hypothyroidism. it is a big deal and relevant to others with the same issue. thank you... i also think 10% is rare enough to be interesting.
- She also has seasonal allergies, and we don't include that either. Find a reliable source that says these minor medical issues are a "big deal" to the story of her life, and we'll consider including it. Tvoz/talk 07:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- As it happens, I have hypothyroidism, as does about ten percent of the population, although most people who have it are unaware of it. I take a supplement once a week, and it otherwise does not affect my life. The editor who posted this question might even have it, and be unaware of it. It seems like an unremarkable thing to mention in articles on politicians - we have no mention of it in articles on Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, for example. bd2412 T 19:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, this is extremely common and benign when treated. Unless there's an announcement of thyroid cancer or actual acute episodes notable in themselves, listing this would be like reporting thinning hair. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. The more interesting part is that her doctor gave her a clean bill of health, but even that I don't think we need to mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, this is extremely common and benign when treated. Unless there's an announcement of thyroid cancer or actual acute episodes notable in themselves, listing this would be like reporting thinning hair. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- As it happens, I have hypothyroidism, as does about ten percent of the population, although most people who have it are unaware of it. I take a supplement once a week, and it otherwise does not affect my life. The editor who posted this question might even have it, and be unaware of it. It seems like an unremarkable thing to mention in articles on politicians - we have no mention of it in articles on Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, for example. bd2412 T 19:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Removal of important and Reliable Sourced Clinton private email
An editor, Cwobeel (talk) who appears to perhaps have followed me over here from Huma Abedin has removed content which seems extra important to this BLP, especially from a historical perspective in the future. Also, perhaps relevantly, Muboshgu and Cwobee1 display ownership issues, at least with the Abedin BLP imo. Here is the content I feel belongs in this BLP.:
On the night of the attack, Clinton emailed her daughter that "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group. The Ambassador, whom I hand picked...". This email was sent at 11:11 P.M. on September 11, 2012, to "Diane Reynolds", a pseudonym for Chelsea Clinton. On that same night, Clinton released a public statement stating, "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, Cwobeel is a prolific editor on all articles related to Hillary Clinton, so there is no case of "following" you here. Secondly, the content you are trying to add seems extraordinarily specific for a summary style article. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in 2012 Benghazi attack and you would have to make a case for inclusion on that article's talk page, although it looks suspiciously like synthesis to me. Certainly I cannot support its inclusion here, and Cwobeel was correct to remove it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- That material does not belong here, as that section is a summary of a very long article as explained by Scjessey. You may argue for its inclusion (if not already there) at that article's talk page. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are 1,360 articles related specifically to what Clinton said in this email on the very date of the Benghazi attack, i.e."Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group". Many great sources are included in the 1,360 such as ABCNews and the Chicago Tribune, and given the overall importance of the Benghazi attack on a US embassy which involved the killing of the Ambassador and other Americans and Clinton's position at that time as the primary government official responsible for the embassy staff, I think that this immediate reaction and report by Clinton concerning the event is certainly necessary to be included in her BLP. In fact, it may be the most important thing she has ever said throughout her many years of public service, or at least a case could be made to support that idea.Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I thought we've all been pretty clear on what sort of material belongs on what article. The email stuff should mostly be on the email article, for instance, but most of it doesn't belong anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are 10s of thousands of articles about many subjects related to Clinton. That is not an argument for inclusion of that material that simply does not belong here. Your WP:ADVOCACY is becoming tiring. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Also, when using Google as a gauge of a news story's importance, it is preferable to to restrict the search to news. The number of articles using a Google News search is only 17, which pretty much confirms my suspicion that this is a NothingBurger. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not Wikinews. I'm sure this content will make it into this BLP whether you 3 like it or not. Its the most historically and politically important statement ("Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.") Hillary Clinton has ever made. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for stating your opinion on what is her most important statement. But your opinion is irrelevant. And it's not just the three of them who agree that this does not belong in this article at this time. Tvoz/talk 07:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Besides, "I'm running for President" is probably the most historically and politically important statement Clinton has ever made, but that's just my opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I think most constructive talk page discussions are based upon opinions if the opinion is related to what to include in the article. All of the rule referencing and repetitive talking points by embedded editors is what is truly irrelevant and a total waste of talk space. Also, its hard for me to see how somebody saying something, that everyone else on the planet already knows, is important; well, almost everybody. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I still say that the statement Clinton made to her daughter on the very day that one of her embassies was overrun and one of her ambassadors was killed...a statement about who carried out the attack...is crucial for her BLP to be as good as it can be. And I'd prefer that this discussion stick with that specific point; i.e. the worthiness of including that statement by Clinton.Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- How? How is it "crucial"? In what way? She sent an email. How is that relevant to an encyclopedic biographical article? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I still say that the statement Clinton made to her daughter on the very day that one of her embassies was overrun and one of her ambassadors was killed...a statement about who carried out the attack...is crucial for her BLP to be as good as it can be. And I'd prefer that this discussion stick with that specific point; i.e. the worthiness of including that statement by Clinton.Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I think most constructive talk page discussions are based upon opinions if the opinion is related to what to include in the article. All of the rule referencing and repetitive talking points by embedded editors is what is truly irrelevant and a total waste of talk space. Also, its hard for me to see how somebody saying something, that everyone else on the planet already knows, is important; well, almost everybody. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Besides, "I'm running for President" is probably the most historically and politically important statement Clinton has ever made, but that's just my opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for stating your opinion on what is her most important statement. But your opinion is irrelevant. And it's not just the three of them who agree that this does not belong in this article at this time. Tvoz/talk 07:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not Wikinews. I'm sure this content will make it into this BLP whether you 3 like it or not. Its the most historically and politically important statement ("Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.") Hillary Clinton has ever made. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Also, when using Google as a gauge of a news story's importance, it is preferable to to restrict the search to news. The number of articles using a Google News search is only 17, which pretty much confirms my suspicion that this is a NothingBurger. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are 1,360 articles related specifically to what Clinton said in this email on the very date of the Benghazi attack, i.e."Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group". Many great sources are included in the 1,360 such as ABCNews and the Chicago Tribune, and given the overall importance of the Benghazi attack on a US embassy which involved the killing of the Ambassador and other Americans and Clinton's position at that time as the primary government official responsible for the embassy staff, I think that this immediate reaction and report by Clinton concerning the event is certainly necessary to be included in her BLP. In fact, it may be the most important thing she has ever said throughout her many years of public service, or at least a case could be made to support that idea.Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be acceptable to just include: On the night of the attack, Clinton emailed her daughter that "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group. The Ambassador, whom I hand picked...". This email was sent at 11:11 P.M. on September 11, 2012, to "Diane Reynolds", a pseudonym for Chelsea Clinton. and leave out the sentence starting with "on that same night"? Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. This is only of apparent significance because the right is making a ludicrous flap about the uncertainty at the time of whether or not it was a planned attack, or a result of the anti-Islamic video. Regular folks aren't interested in this partisan crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is not an either/or situation, however. There is no reason that the planning of an attack can not be instigated by a provocative video. bd2412 T 19:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Quite true, BD. Somehow this simple and pretty obvious point has eluded the Benghazi alarmists. Tvoz/talk 22:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I believe every Hillary Clinton email she ever wrote should be inserted into this article. I would compromise on only ones related in any way to Benghazi. However despite my eminent correctness in all things I appear to be in a microscopic minority. At least I realize this is the case.--Milowent • 18:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've come to agree with Scjessey (talk) about this BLP, as it exists, being partisan crap that regular people will not be interested in. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Cute. And the opposite of what Scjessey said. Also insulting to the editors who have worked long and hard on this BLP, for many years.Tvoz/talk 22:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Given what happened the last time you thought a Clinton article wasn't negative enough, I suggest you don't try to AfD this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, I don't see Abedin as a Clinton article, I see all articles as independent. Back to this BLP, Common Sense tells me that a direct quote of what the Subject says about a major event in her life and career should be certainly included in her BLP, especially since the BLP includes so many less notable quotes like she described herself as "a mind conservative and a heart liberal" and really trite stuff like "I chose to follow my heart instead of my head". The only explanation that makes sense is that you simply want to exclude this quote because of you and others perhaps being paranoid about and/or intimidated by the perceived power and influence of some kind of "right wing conspiracy"theory? boogeyman that you guys are always talking about. Don't be afraid. Just edit with unbiased objectivity and assume others are doing the same. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- For the sake of internal consistency, I checked the articles on Ronald Reagan and George P. Shultz, to see if either of their main articles contained comparable detail about the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, which was an event of much larger scale. Neither of them do. bd2412 T 05:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Nocturnalnow. I think Clinton's email and public response about the attacks are notable and relevant enough to be included in this article.--Mouse001 (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- The opinion of someone who operates a single-purpose account is of little value to this discussion, to be honest with you. Nobody cares about this email, and the confusion about the impetus for the attacks is well covered in 2012 Benghazi attack and related articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, people with an anti-Hillary agenda care about stoking the narrative, and the reporters working in the 24 hour news cycle need to keep digging through details. It's completely unencyclopedic, though, especially to say she emailed her daughter with vague details of an attack. What does that email tell us? Nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Muboshgu and Scjessey, this is not the place for you 2 to reinforce each other's sad and patheticly ad hominem attacks on any editor who dares disagree with you, however politely, as Mouse did re: this discussion... and Muboshgu, if you think that "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group." is "vague", I don't see how your opinions have any value on English Misplaced Pages because your knowledge of the meaning of common English words like "vague" is severely lacking. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, people with an anti-Hillary agenda care about stoking the narrative, and the reporters working in the 24 hour news cycle need to keep digging through details. It's completely unencyclopedic, though, especially to say she emailed her daughter with vague details of an attack. What does that email tell us? Nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- The opinion of someone who operates a single-purpose account is of little value to this discussion, to be honest with you. Nobody cares about this email, and the confusion about the impetus for the attacks is well covered in 2012 Benghazi attack and related articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Nocturnalnow. I think Clinton's email and public response about the attacks are notable and relevant enough to be included in this article.--Mouse001 (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- For the sake of internal consistency, I checked the articles on Ronald Reagan and George P. Shultz, to see if either of their main articles contained comparable detail about the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, which was an event of much larger scale. Neither of them do. bd2412 T 05:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, I don't see Abedin as a Clinton article, I see all articles as independent. Back to this BLP, Common Sense tells me that a direct quote of what the Subject says about a major event in her life and career should be certainly included in her BLP, especially since the BLP includes so many less notable quotes like she described herself as "a mind conservative and a heart liberal" and really trite stuff like "I chose to follow my heart instead of my head". The only explanation that makes sense is that you simply want to exclude this quote because of you and others perhaps being paranoid about and/or intimidated by the perceived power and influence of some kind of "right wing conspiracy"theory? boogeyman that you guys are always talking about. Don't be afraid. Just edit with unbiased objectivity and assume others are doing the same. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've come to agree with Scjessey (talk) about this BLP, as it exists, being partisan crap that regular people will not be interested in. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Here are 5 quotes by the Subject which are in the BLP:
"I chose to follow my heart instead of my head".
"it showed that I was still me."
"sleeping sickness of the soul"
"a love that has persisted for decades"
"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they'd they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?"
Could someone please explain how "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group." is less includable than those 5? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is becoming tiresome and disruptive. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK already. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- A classic case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT - Cwobeel (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- You can't hide talk page discussions that aren't going your way, what are you afraid of now, critical thinking and objective editors seeing the discussion and making up their own minds? I won't be saying more unless others do. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Discussions are designed for the purpose of gaining consensus in regard of improving articles. This discussion has been exhausted, unless you have not noticed. See WP:CONSENSUS - Cwobeel (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. Mouse001 (talk just endorsed the idea of including the statement within the past day. There are discussions here over 1 month old you can archive if you want but if you try to hide this discussion again out of turn, I will take that to the Admin. noticeboard and or the BLP noticeboard. This talk page is not OWNED by any of us nor any few of us. I won't be saying more unless others do.Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I do think we need the appropriate noticeboard. We're going around in circles here with this serious BLP matter. You're pushing ideas that have been fairly thoroughly discredited and therefore don't belong on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. Mouse001 (talk just endorsed the idea of including the statement within the past day. There are discussions here over 1 month old you can archive if you want but if you try to hide this discussion again out of turn, I will take that to the Admin. noticeboard and or the BLP noticeboard. This talk page is not OWNED by any of us nor any few of us. I won't be saying more unless others do.Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Discussions are designed for the purpose of gaining consensus in regard of improving articles. This discussion has been exhausted, unless you have not noticed. See WP:CONSENSUS - Cwobeel (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- You can't hide talk page discussions that aren't going your way, what are you afraid of now, critical thinking and objective editors seeing the discussion and making up their own minds? I won't be saying more unless others do. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how this proposed content is remotely pertinent to a biographical description of the life and times of Hillary Clinton. That
the two editors promoting inapt content additions are basically SPAs is a concern, as is the observation thatthis mirrors a current (or perhaps a little stale by now) Republican campaign talking point is a concern. Certain things discussed in the email, for example her relationship with Blumenthal, might be significant of their own accord. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)- Wikidemon, I know you are a great editor, but you should strike out your reference to me being a SPA. I am certainly not a SPA. As I state on my Talk page (since May), I am a new incarnation of Mr. Grant Evans 2 having several times forgotten my password (I'm a reaaaly old guy), as has been addressed and agreed to several times before, for one, here. I do not know why this mischaracterization keeps coming up? Muboshgu, Cwobee1, Scjessey, all know I am not a SPA. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Can anyone please answer the question directly above? "Could someone please explain how "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group." is less includable than those 5 (quotes listed above)? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC). That would really help me forget about this BLP if its a logical answer. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The first four quotes are autobiographical quotes, where Hillary Clinton is describing herself, and which are therefore appropriate to provide context to an article describing Hillary Clinton. The fifth is without a doubt the most widely reported and discussed quote about one specific incident that is covered in far greater depth in another article. From an editorial standpoint, that is why these quotes are more includable than an email describing that incident, which is the subject of another article, and not describing the subject of this article. As noted above, this is consistent with other articles on former U.S. presidents and secretaries of state. bd2412 T 18:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- ok thank you, bd2412 T; that makes sense to me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- The first four quotes are autobiographical quotes, where Hillary Clinton is describing herself, and which are therefore appropriate to provide context to an article describing Hillary Clinton. The fifth is without a doubt the most widely reported and discussed quote about one specific incident that is covered in far greater depth in another article. From an editorial standpoint, that is why these quotes are more includable than an email describing that incident, which is the subject of another article, and not describing the subject of this article. As noted above, this is consistent with other articles on former U.S. presidents and secretaries of state. bd2412 T 18:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Can anyone please answer the question directly above? "Could someone please explain how "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group." is less includable than those 5 (quotes listed above)? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC). That would really help me forget about this BLP if its a logical answer. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Wikidemon, I know you are a great editor, but you should strike out your reference to me being a SPA. I am certainly not a SPA. As I state on my Talk page (since May), I am a new incarnation of Mr. Grant Evans 2 having several times forgotten my password (I'm a reaaaly old guy), as has been addressed and agreed to several times before, for one, here. I do not know why this mischaracterization keeps coming up? Muboshgu, Cwobee1, Scjessey, all know I am not a SPA. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is no content from this NY Times article being allowed in the Wall Steet section?
The reasons for removal of Mouse's and my edits include OR and "implication" which do not apply at all to any of the edit attempts. Please clarify what parts of this article you would feel are includable. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The new article is an opinion piece, which means for the most part that it is not a reliable source to begin with. Its subject, an analysis of her political image and a perceived vulnerability, may or may not be relevant to a particular election-related article, but it is not a biographical fact of the sort that adds to this main article. The entire section, a campaign-season position proposal having to do with Wall Street, may be similarly irrelevant here. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, I didn't revert it because the source was an opinion piece. I reverted it because Mouse001 invented an agenda-driven narrative to portray the NYT piece as outright criticism. Despite an apparent effort to get around this, Nocturnalnow did exactly the same thing by using words like "however" and "also" to make it seem like a rebuttal to Clinton's stated goals for Wall Street. These are just about the clearest examples of non-neutral editing for the sake of fake "balance" you will see on Misplaced Pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed the whole section about her Wall Street proposol, since it does not appear to be relevant to this BLP per some editors comments.--Mouse001 (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Wikidemon, there are other Op Eds eg. 311 and 307 used as sources, however, I agree with you and maybe more OpEd content could be moved to other articles. I also agree with you and now Mouse001 that the entire section may be irrelevant and I support Mouse001's removal of it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that her releasing a Wall Street plan belongs on her subpages, not here. OpEd content is generally not good to include, but it's okay if it's sourcing factual information. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with this as well. The whole point of a summary style article is that we shunt stuff that isn't biographically significant to the subject's entire life into subpages, and this is an example of that. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that her releasing a Wall Street plan belongs on her subpages, not here. OpEd content is generally not good to include, but it's okay if it's sourcing factual information. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Wikidemon, there are other Op Eds eg. 311 and 307 used as sources, however, I agree with you and maybe more OpEd content could be moved to other articles. I also agree with you and now Mouse001 that the entire section may be irrelevant and I support Mouse001's removal of it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed the whole section about her Wall Street proposol, since it does not appear to be relevant to this BLP per some editors comments.--Mouse001 (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, I didn't revert it because the source was an opinion piece. I reverted it because Mouse001 invented an agenda-driven narrative to portray the NYT piece as outright criticism. Despite an apparent effort to get around this, Nocturnalnow did exactly the same thing by using words like "however" and "also" to make it seem like a rebuttal to Clinton's stated goals for Wall Street. These are just about the clearest examples of non-neutral editing for the sake of fake "balance" you will see on Misplaced Pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thomas Alfred Taylor case
Is her first criminal case, where she defended Thomas Alfred Taylor in 1975 in a case involving a 12 year old, worth noting here in this section? Particularly since it is making news rounds and apparently also did so in 2008? Daily Beast covered it 20 June 2014] for example. 184.146.6.191 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- It is the responsibility of a criminal defense lawyer to do everything in their power to get their client the lightest possible sentence, or no conviction at all. Since Clinton did exactly that, it's hard to see why this is significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the story seems to be more about Clinton's behavior than the legal case. Plus there are 1590 articles about Clinton's behavior regarding that case, including many by reliable and unbiased sources like CBS news, ABC news and the Washington Post. I think 184.146.6.191 may have a good suggestion here. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Do the search with Google News to weed out some of the nonsense, and the number of hits drops to around 50, most of which are garbage websites from the whack job fringe echoing each other. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here are 3 which seem like enough for a notation cbsabcwash post. There are also FOX news, Politico, NY Daily News, Slate Forbes, etc. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- What precisely is there about "Clinton's behavior" in this case that's worth mentioning? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody is questioning Clinton's behavior in the mainstream sources. The few sources that exist are basically saying that Republicans are trying to "make hay" out of the fact that Clinton once did her job properly. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I see something that has nothing to do with partison politics. I see this in the ABC article coming from the woman raped by Clinton's client:"Hillary Clinton took me through hell," the victim told the Daily Beast in an emotional interview published today. The woman said that if she saw Clinton today she would say, "I realize the truth now, the heart of what you've done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that for women, what you done to me? And I heard you on tape laughing." Its annoying to have to continually hear about Republican or conservative or right wing-strawmen with every little bit of content that is not puffery; that's my problem, getting tired of hearing the same old objections to RS content when the sources of the content are not referencing the strawmen at all. Since nobody else seems to be actually reading the sources before dismissing them all, I think we just have to go back to being bold and then having a discussion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I read the source before I asked you that question, so AGF. The comment of that woman is total puffery and, like Scjessey said, just an attempt to smear Hillary. She did her job as a lawyer. If you can actually point to something inappropriate that she did during the trial, we can discuss adding it, but just mentioning that she defended an accused rapist and putting in that quote? You're again trying to skew this article to the right-wing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I see something that has nothing to do with partison politics. I see this in the ABC article coming from the woman raped by Clinton's client:"Hillary Clinton took me through hell," the victim told the Daily Beast in an emotional interview published today. The woman said that if she saw Clinton today she would say, "I realize the truth now, the heart of what you've done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that for women, what you done to me? And I heard you on tape laughing." Its annoying to have to continually hear about Republican or conservative or right wing-strawmen with every little bit of content that is not puffery; that's my problem, getting tired of hearing the same old objections to RS content when the sources of the content are not referencing the strawmen at all. Since nobody else seems to be actually reading the sources before dismissing them all, I think we just have to go back to being bold and then having a discussion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody is questioning Clinton's behavior in the mainstream sources. The few sources that exist are basically saying that Republicans are trying to "make hay" out of the fact that Clinton once did her job properly. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- What precisely is there about "Clinton's behavior" in this case that's worth mentioning? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here are 3 which seem like enough for a notation cbsabcwash post. There are also FOX news, Politico, NY Daily News, Slate Forbes, etc. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Do the search with Google News to weed out some of the nonsense, and the number of hits drops to around 50, most of which are garbage websites from the whack job fringe echoing each other. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the story seems to be more about Clinton's behavior than the legal case. Plus there are 1590 articles about Clinton's behavior regarding that case, including many by reliable and unbiased sources like CBS news, ABC news and the Washington Post. I think 184.146.6.191 may have a good suggestion here. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2015
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Net Worth. Hillary Clinton's net worth is $31.3 million. Our Hillary Clinton net worth number comes from analyzing her 2015 U.S. Public Financial Disclosure Reports. Bill Clinton has an estimated net worth of $80 million Hello everyone! (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Please make your request specific, preferably in the form of change X to Y
. Further, you will need to provide reliable sources for any information you propose to change or add. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Proposed edit
I would like to propose the removal of the "2015 appearance before House Select Committee on Benghazi" sub-section and merge it with the email controversy sub-section as well as trim the excessive details.
The reason why I do not think it should be a section is because:
1. It lacks notability within the scope of Clinton's biography. No one will care about a "2015 hearing" a year from now. Clinton has done many hearings in Congress, this one only being the most recent.
2. It lacks relevance being listed under the main section "Secretary of State". Notice that the other sub-sections under "Secretary of State" are actually more related to her activities during the time she worked as the Secretary of State and are far greater with much more historical context.
3. It is more related to the "Email controversy" sub-section than "Secretary of State." The email controversy article has its own comments on the hearing with a link to the Benghazi Committee article and I think this level of organization is much more appropriate.
--Mouse001 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. Because...
- It received massive, pervasive coverage in the mainstream media over many days, blowing your "lacks notability" theory out of the water.
- It was a hearing on her performance as Secretary of State during the Benghazi attacks, but it needs to be an independent subsection because it occurred after her tenure at State.
- No, it is separate from the email issue. In fact, it was a targeted Republican attack on the Democratic frontrunner for the Presidency.
- Leave it all in and stop trying to inflate the importance of the email issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- It did receive much media coverage around the time she testified, but the testimony itself is not a significant enough biographical fact for a section under "Secretary of State" and pales in comparison to the other sections. (WP:RECENTISM) I suppose it would be more appropriate and encyclopedic to summarize the post-Benghazi investigation by the committee instead as Clinton's hearings was a part of it. The current version is also not a summary of the main article that is linked (United States House Select Committee on Benghazi). I have attempted to change it in here--Mouse001 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
- FA-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- FA-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- FA-Class United States articles of High-importance
- FA-Class Arkansas articles
- High-importance Arkansas articles
- WikiProject Arkansas articles
- FA-Class Cape Cod and the Islands articles
- Mid-importance Cape Cod and the Islands articles
- WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands articles
- FA-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- FA-Class Chicago articles
- Mid-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- FA-Class New York (state) articles
- High-importance New York (state) articles
- FA-Class Women's History articles
- Mid-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- FA-Class Women writers articles
- Mid-importance Women writers articles
- WikiProject Women articles
- WikiProject Women writers articles
- FA-Class WikiProject Women articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Selected anniversaries (November 2015)