Talk:Hillary Clinton

HC & HRC Books

FYI, I've reorganized List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton a bit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: - Nice list. I always found it remarkable how many anti-Hillary books came out in 2007-2008 time frame. Wonder whether the driver there was have the election promote book sales, or to undermine the Clinton campaign, or both? NickCT (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Both. Not that there's anything wrong with it. Edit semi-protected (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

hrod17@clintonemail.com ?

Is it verifiable that Ms. Clinton also used hrod17@clintonemail.com as an email address during her tenure at the state department? I have heard this at several removes that make me doubt its veracity. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was her newer e-mail address, a change necessitated by Gawker publicizing the original one in 2013. Fringe blogs are trying to make scandalous hay out if it apparently, but it seems there's much ado about nothing. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My sole concern was the validity of the address itself, not its use. I am not sure how it could be a GOP "attack" if it's real, the CBS article seems to have a very odd political slant, but I'll assume it's reliable, so long as Dan (false but accurate) Rather wasn't involved. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

And whaddyaknow - it has the "rod" in there. Rod, as in Hillary Rodham Clinton, her name. Just sayin'. Tvoz/talk 21:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is equally noteworthy that this email address was not her first choice. She only changed to it when her first email address, hdr22@clintonemail.com, was made public. Also, she must have been peeved when she went to sign up for hrod@clintonemail.com and found that there were already 16 people before her with the same email address. It probably stands for "hot rod", since she could have spelled out "Rodham" if she had wanted. bd2412 T 22:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe she didn't want anyone to be confused. I doubt there were already 16 people on clintonemail.com with hrod ahead of her or 21 with hdr - there must be another explanation than that. I'm just pointing out that Rodham has never been abandoned (as in hdr too) contra what some have argued regarding her campaign and/or ballot listings. Just a comment in passing - not interested in a rehash! Tvoz/talk 00:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mention of Lewinsky scandal in lead

@SNUGGUMS: and @Cwobeel: have both recently removed from the article's lead any mention of the Lewinsky scandal. Which kind of surprises me, because mention of it has been in the lead continuously since 2007, with no one to my memory ever objecting to it being in the lead before. (The wording used to be "The state of her marriage to Bill Clinton was the subject of considerable public discussion following the Lewinsky scandal in 1998" and then somewhere along the way it was changed to the shorter "Her marriage endured the Lewinsky scandal in 1998.")

Now, it may not get as much attention now as it once did, but for a whole year or more, the Lewinsky matter was pretty much the only thing that anyone talked about in terms of either Bill or Hillary, with considerable discussion as to whether Hillary would stay in the marriage and the reasons why she stayed once it was clear she was going to. Her favorability ratings shot upward during the scandal, and some people believe that without that boost she never would have attempted a political career on her own. When Hillary published her first memoir Living History in 2003, the material in it on the Lewinksy matter was what all the interviewers and reviewers focused on the most. In other words, it was a really big deal, and it has its own subsection in the article. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the subject's entire life, it seems to me mention of it should be there. Consider that some percentage of readers never go past the lead and are too young to have witnessed the Lewinsky matter; do you really want them to walk away without seeing it mentioned? I'm certainly open to the wording of it, which was part of SNUGGUMS' objection, but some kind of mention has always been there and I think should continue to be there. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree to removing it if the lead were much shorter, but this lead is pretty big. It includes stuff like, "Hillary Rodham was the first student commencement speaker at Wellesley College in 1969." The Lewinsky scandal was the biggest challenge during her role as first lady, so it seems very apt to include very briefly in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If Lewinsky is included, I at least wouldn't want the wording to be what it was when I removed it. "The state of her marriage to Bill Clinton was the subject of considerable public discussion following the Lewinsky scandal in 1998" would be better than simply "Her marriage endured the Lewinsky scandal in 1998". Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I refuse to engage in a discussion when one editor is choosing edit warring instead of discussing. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton

This discussion is not related to HRC's Wikipedia article specifically, but page watchers may be interested in contributing to the discussion re: the deletion of WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton. Please see the following link: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you much for the announcement. I will be around to support Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, but lurking until the objection gains strength. She may very well be our next POTUS in America. Edit semi-protected (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Location and section header relative to emails controversy

There's been a flurry of changes on this. At issue is:

1. Should the emails controversy be located in the Secretary of State section or in the section that deals with after Secretary of State and before 2016 presidential campaign?
2. Should the emails controversy be its own section?
3. Should the emails controversy be part of the title of an enclosing section?
4. What should the title of that section be?

On the first, I feel strongly that it should not be in the Secretary of State section. The discovery of the issue, the turning over of some of the emails and deleting of other emails, the publishing schedule and demands by the Gowdy committee, all these things are happening in 2015, two years after she left State.

I also don't think it should be its own section, not until we know whether it will achieve major impact upon her life or career. Consider the WP:10 year test – lots of controversies in Clinton's past occupied the headlines at the time, but they don't warrant a separate section now. Indeed the only one that shows up in a header in this article is Whitewater, because for that she was the subject of a long Independent Counsel investigation, which issued formal findings as to her actions, and during which she was subpoenaed to testify before a Federal grand jury. Nothing equivalent to that has happened here. Maybe it will, but it hasn't yet. I get that recentism is a powerful force, but it's our job to resist it as best we can.

As to what the title of the post-Sec State, pre-2016 campaign section should be, there's no great answer for these years when a politician is out of office before staging another presidential run. I've had "Subsequent activities" which is kind of lame. Inclusion of the Clinton Foundation belongs, since she joined it as a named member, was part of a couple of initiatives, then stepped down from it during this period. But what else isn't exactly clear. In a snap reaction last night I made it "Clinton Foundation, emails controversy, and other activities", but as I'm saying here, I think I was wrong to include emails in the header. Better would just be "Clinton Foundation and other activities". Wasted Time R (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the "email controversy" relates directly to her time at Foggy Bottom, insofar as it would not have been an issue if she wasn't the Secretary of State at the time. That said, I think the current coverage in the article is far too much and totally disproportional to its significance. Trying to shoehorn this into the section on State is going to be difficult, because of the current structure of the article (strictly chronological). I think "subsequent activities" is a poor title to describe the period between her time at State and the beginning of her campaign, and it should probably be changed to something else. Part of the problem is that the email issue spans a period from the beginning of her time at State to some point in the future. We need a title that reflects that. If we can find a way to do that, we can then include a mention of the email issue in that section, although I would keep it to something like this:

Beginning in March 2015, Clinton's use of her own private e-mail address and server throughout her time as Secretary of State drew scrutiny from political opponents and the media.

It should only be expanded if, as you suggest, it leads to a major impact upon her life or career. Since it already has its own article, there is no need for us to dwell on the specific details that aren't biographically germane at this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have come here last last night before removing "emails controversy" from the header, then tweaking it to "Clinton Foundation and other post-State Department activities" which I chose because it is more specific than just "other activities" and still think is a consistent title with the approach of this Featured Article. I feel strongly that the article's essentially chronological structure should be preserved, with the email matter a part of this post-State section whatever it's called, rather than in State. Further, in line with the rest of the article, it should not be a separate section unless and until it rises in significance to her whole complex life as we are writing this BLP about. Right now it is indeed disproportional to its significance, given the totality of her life experience. If that changes - if this matter has a significant impact on her life- we'd expand. Tvoz/talk 16:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Scjessey about the amount of text given to this matter; I think what's there now is appropriate. This is not something that just political opponents and scoop-hungry reporters are concerned with. What Clinton did was a bad idea from a computer security viewpoint and a bad idea in terms of preserving the archival historical record. It also showed dubious political judgment, as she should have realized the optics would be poor if it ever became public. For all these reasons it is biographically relevant. As for the section title that includes it, Tvoz's suggestion could be shortened to "Clinton Foundation and post-State activities". This approach to the title does have the advantage that the memoir, speeches, and emails addressed in that section do all relate to her time at State. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That ("and post-State activities") would be fine with me. The amount of text is also ok with me, but not as a separate section which to me is what is disproportionate. Tvoz/talk 02:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

There being no further comments here, I've eliminated the separate subsection for emails since there was clear consensus that was not appropriate. I've changed the enclosing section to "Clinton Foundation and post-State activities", since there seemed to be agreement on that. We didn't discuss it here, but I've also put in 'See also' xrefs at the top of the section to the articles on the foundation and on the emails (they were in some of the earlier formulations). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Portrait

It does make sense that we used the most recent official portrait for an article, such as for Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, for example. But in this case, she is out of office, but running for another office. Because of this, the reader who decides "I'll look up Hillary on Wikipedia" will see a portrait which is 6.5 nearly 7 years old. As an active candidate, actively campaigning, whose appearance has changed significantly (aging, weight) since the time of the portrait, the inclusion of the portrait I added (below) is pertinent. While taken at an event, it is very high resolution, high quality, in focus, and looks very professional (released by campaign), and her facial expression is smiling just like the official portrait. Strictly adhering to a 'official' preferred policy, in this case, detracts from the purpose of the article. While Jimmy Carter may have aged nearly 40 years from his info box portrait, the main purpose of his article is to enlighten over the subject of his life, whose height was a presidency from 1977-1981. But Hillary isn't retired and out of office, she is a current event. We use a 2015 photo of Jeb Bush for these same purposes.

Spartan7W § 03:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Wow. So we should not follow policy because you want people to see that HRC has been growing old and fat? Not that there is much different between the two photos, because there isn't. But your reasoning is beyond offensive. No. Dave Dial (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I'm saying. Truth is, people get old. Chris Christie could be called obese, but he has been losing weight. If we were to change pictures for him because of his appearance change, nobody would object. What I am saying is this: sometimes an exception to a policy can benefit a reader. To attack me and my perfectly legitimate rationale is simply petty. I am bringing about a genuine issue for discussion. Spartan7W § 04:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Use the previous photograph. Use a recent photograph on the article on the current campaign. This articles covers her full lifetime and should not obsess with the recent events, especially given that there are subarticles covering recent events. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Use official portrait from 2009. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Unless I'm mistaken, the "most recent official portrait as top photo" approach isn't a rule but rather than informal guideline that's been adopted. I agree with it in general and argued for keeping the 2009 portrait at the top throughout her tenure as secretary even though some wanted a change. But now it's been 6½ years and I would be inclined to a switch to a current one if a really decent possible photo appeared, and I think this one qualifies – she looks good and it was made available by the campaign. (I've always thought that campaigns should release good quality portraits for use in WP.) Unfortunately Spartan7W has since poisoned the well with the above aging and weight comments, which really really shouldn't be the point. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2011

• I think a more relaxed, natural image of Clinton would be more appropriate, and better represent her. This image (right) from 2011 has a much less artificial look. A cropped, less tall version with the right eye centered would be quite handsome and less staged-looking. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Prefer the current, representing the subject at the high point of her career. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

But it doesn't represent her at the high point of her career, no photo can do that. It just represents a rather artificially posed grimace that is quite unflattering. I think we should use the most natural looking relatively image. The one I have suggested is only four years old and presents her in a genuine light. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about File:Hillary Clinton official Secretary of State portrait crop.jpg? Whichever, way, I think you are quite confused. The current is verifiably the official Secretary of State portrait, and it is more flattering. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The above image I used isn't a pose. Look at the link on its commons page, you'll see I've cropped it. It is actually a candid shot. Spartan7W § 05:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

She's looking straight at the camera, and "smiling" for it, although her eyes do not reflect a natural smile. That's the definition of a pose. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Additional Comment (I !voted above): Neither image is particularly flattering. The recent one is pretty terrible and much more unflattering (not that she's older or heavier -- really who cares? -- but that she looks like she's been hit by a stun gun) than the official portrait. In light of that fact, the official portrait wins, unless a better image is put forth. In terms of the 2011 shot someone just posted above -- it's not facing forward, and it would need to be cropped top and right to center the image. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - As stated on my talk page, political figures are not pop culture icons; with their bios, we should aim for more of an air of professionalism rather than "Where Are They Now?" images. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Prefer the photo proposed by Spartan7W as being most current and least WP:PROMOTIONAL. LavaBaron (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• This isn't a where are they now as Tarc would suggest. If this were such an attempt by me, I would update every out of office politician with new pictures, I don't. Right now, I want to help build an encyclopedia which thoroughly and efficiently covers the U.S. presidential elections, and U.S. government, and do so in a uniform, standardized way. So no for Bill Clinton, Bush 43, etc. But in this case, she is out of office, yes. But she is actively campaigning for a very high public office. Perhaps my word choice wasn't everybody's favorite, but she does look different than she did in 2009, 6 almost 7 years ago. People will look her up on this site to read about her, they'll hear about her on the news and look her up. She isn't a past or current officeholder, she is one seeking an office. They go to secretary of state, they'll see her portrait. If she wins, we'll put up a new portrait from the White House. If she loses, we can revert to the state dept., her highest and last office. Spartan7W § 23:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Moratorium on HC/HRC pagemoves until after November 8, 2016?

Should we impose a moratorium on page moves on Hillary Clinton during the 2015-2016 campaign season? BusterD (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I was one editor who opposed the move just discussed and closed, but as a longtime Wikipedian I'm concerned about the fallout if we try to remeasure consensus on this issue during the campaign season. I'd like to see what support we could muster to oppose any page moves on this subject until after the US presidential election in 2016. This proposed moratorium is not intended to impede moves related to bringing subpages and related pages in line with the most recent measurement of consensus. BusterD (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  Additional comment: This request is not intended to short circuit any move review procedure, if editors who strongly disagree with the close decide to pursue such avenues. For my part I'm satisfied with the close, though my position is at odds with the outcome. My only interest is in preventing another contentious move discussion while the subject is actually running for office. I'm afraid such a (likely highly politicized) discussion could hurt Wikipedia's reputation, such as it is, of being a good place to get neutral encyclopedic information. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support as explained above. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. As things stand now, it seems like a page move is extremely unlikely given that only a minority has supported such a move during the two major efforts over the past year and a half. However, circumstances can change. Hillary might announce that she wants everyone to only call her Hillary Rodham Clinton, or just Hillary, and the press might oblige. There's no way to predict. A better moratorium might be on any page move without at least 150 !votes before 2017.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• On principle I oppose any moratorium running for longer than a year, because there is no telling what could happen in that time. I would definitely support the same restriction imposed after the previous move discussion, with any new move proposal having a substantial minimum length, to prevent fly-by requests made without a presentation of evidence. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Moot - As I have noted in the past, this was an issue of interest to a handful of vocal editors who are primarily involved in article move discussions across a variety of topics; RMs are their wiki-raison d'être, and no doubt have Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request (which will, ironically, retain "Rodham" for all-time) out to the printers, being fitted for a frame above the mantelpiece. Those who are here because of their interest in politics and in improving Clinton-centric articles...while I certainly do not profess to literally speak for anyone else, I surmise that there's a the general sentiment of "we'll be glad to see their taillights". Tarc (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support was Comment any reason the Feb 2017 moratorium ( with the length requirements ) would not still be in place? PaleAqua (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  My opinion is that ANY extended discussion of the subject article name during the campaign season makes all wikipedians look like tools, and Wikipedia look (and act) like a political forum. This is one of the reasons I opposed the latest move request. The current moratorium didn't stop MOS activists from changing a pagename which had held steady for over ten years. To me, someone who rarely edits in the field of politics, it looked pointy. Most MOS "crusades" look pointy to me. But I'm over the move; my arguments didn't prevail. In the near future I'd prefer no herky-jerky motion on this pagespace with the whole world watching over our shoulders. BusterD (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  Looks like it had an escape clause which ended it with any successful close. In that case support, though I'd rather have Nov 8, 2016 for any RM without a strong exceptional reason and reinstating the 5000 min til Feb 2017. While I can understand those disliking on moratoriums in principall, I think there are a place for them especially if cases where the issue is relatively minor ( this article is easily found for example regardless of the name ) and the discussions have been disportionate. FWIW I actually slightly prefer HRC as I meantioned in previous discussions, even though I did not take part in the latest one. PaleAqua (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose moratorium. I'm a supporter of the current title (HC), but I oppose moratoriums on principle [1] - they are contrary to the spirit of WP. --В²C ☎ 17:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support as a matter of common sense. There are other things to do people.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose moratorium but support the trouting of anyone who suggests a move in the near future. It is highly unlikely a consensus to move this article again will ever be found, unless she divorces Bill and marries someone else and changes her name again, or if she makes such a big fuss in the near future about wanting to be called Hillary Rodham Clinton that it gets a media firestorm. Moratoriums are not in the spirit of Wikipedia, but anyone proposing a move in the foreseeable future should be stuffed in a bag and thrown in the river. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is highly unlikely a consensus to move this article again will ever be found,..." Exactly what I have been arguing for years. Strong policy arguments to move from HRC to HC; zero policy basis to move from HC back to HRC. That is the point of the yogurt principle and why it applied her. --В²C ☎ 01:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • B2C, if there is never another attempt to move this article, I think the primary reason will be that no one wants to hear you prattle on about yogurt again. Ever. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I can picture in my mind a Morgan Freeman voiceover... "somewhere, right now in the vastness of the Wikipedia, someone is striving for centre as the right choice for an article title, while others yearn for center. Is there a man with the courage to stop this madness?" Tarc (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The grinding has been coming from the +HC camp. If the +HRC camp starts a series of RMs in a grinding war of attrition, then we can consider it. A moratorium would needlessly tie our hands if real world circumstances change significantly or if there is a relevant policy change. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

An enlisting of Hillary?

I will be interested to see how, if at all, the Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton page move may effect the frequency with which readers visit the page.

The HC/HRC page I think has had a real problem as far as Google and possibly other searches are concerned and, in very many versions of Google, the HC/HRC page doesn't get listed at all. In various geographic locations and when making use of various top level domains within which a google.??? search may be conducted, a Hillary Clinton listing may not individually appear at all. In many cases a search on "Clinton" will give Bill Clinton's Wikipedia page as a first item on the search list and present Hillary as a subsidiary link within the BC listing. It appears as:

Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton Wikipedia
William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United ...
‎Hillary Clinton - ‎Chelsea Clinton - ‎Impeachment of Bill Clinton - ‎Roger Clinton, Jr.

I think that the reason for this is that when people searched for "Hillary Clinton", Google did not make a most direct link to a "Hillary Rodham Clinton" article. Normally a Wikipedia article comes at the highest ranking point in any google listing. This has not been the case with HRC and it may be hoped that this may change subsequent to the move to HC.

The thing that I found perplexing was that, even though Hillary is far more prominently featured in the news certainly since she stood for election, Bill's article still gets more visits. Currently at the top 5000 articles by visits as found at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages Bill's article ranks at 700 while Hillary Rodham Clinton article ranks at 1041. I think (hope) that the lowly ratings may have been due to the Hillary Rodham Clinton not being as searchable as it might be.

I don't know exactly how it might happen but my hope is that the recent page move may help Hillary's Wikipedia article to get out of the Google shadow of Bill's Wikipedia article. GregKaye 22:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, interestingly enough, some of this might possibly have to do with WP:RECENTISM actually working in the real world--even though HC is way more prominent in the news, her actual accomplishments are far less than those of her hubby's (until/unless she becomes president, of course). So maybe that has something to do with it. But I think the more likely example is a commercial one. Look at Google search results for, say, Santa Monica beach and Wikipedia doesn't appear anywhere near the top, since there are different organizations fighting tooth and nail against us and against each other to boost the ranking of their website. Put in Fresno and we're second, because there's less competition to beef up rankings for that city. (Interestingly, though, a search for Hillary Clinton puts her second for me behind the campaign website and news results, and the old HRC search put her first, with no news results. ... which is probably why we moved the article.) Red Slash 22:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

People searching for "Clinton" should get Bill before Hillary. He was a two-term President of the United States, and in the calculus of these things, being POTUS outweighs almost anything else. Just like people searching for "Bush" should get either GWB or GHWB before they get Jeb. Anyway, I suspect most people searching for this subject will type in "Hillary" in which case they will get her, regardless of the article title. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Since Google indexes by web page content, the title has very little to do with Google finding it. If we named this article GavertiyGlub it would not affect where Google lists it in the results for "Hillary Clinton" searches. I just searched for Hillary Clinton and our article was listed second (not counting the paid link at the top to her campaign page, and the news section), however it still linked to the HRC url. It will be interesting to see when that will change to the HC url. Shouldn't take too long. --В²C ☎ 01:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting point about the page view stats. Perhaps we'll have something to comment on about this at some point at the WP:TOP25. While the most popular articles any week will include recent top news/culture events, there are always articles like United States and World War II and India in the weekly top 50. Recent U.S. presidents have a steady level of popularity, e.g., Ronald Reagan was 494 in the most recent top 5000 report and 452 the prior week, so that's probably its steady level of popularity range. The Hillary name change may be less easy to discern a difference on, compared to something more dramatic like Caitlyn Jenner.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Google trends presents some, I think, interesting comparisons between the Clintons with "Hillary Clinton" being used in ~50% more searches (on a ratio of 9:6) than "Bill Clinton" in the last year. GregKaye 06:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The trend graph shows that interest in the Clintons and most prominently in Hillary was at a recent peak around the week April 12-18 2015. In a Revision as of 09:41, 19 April 2015 of the West.andrew.g page the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" article was ranked at 22 while the "Bill Clinton" article was ranked at 69.

The Hillary Clinton article receives links from 5000(+a little) Wikipedia pages while the "Bill Clinton" article receives links from ~13600 Wikipedia pages.

None the less I think that the Googly Bill issue has a lot to do with current levels of reader access to the Hillary page.

I did a Google trends search on Caitlyn Jenner,Bruce Jenner,Hillary Clinton as the Caitlyn Jenner page has been viewed 739271 times in the last 30 days and is ranked fifth while the current redirect page Bruce Jenner has been viewed 1108421 times in the last 30 days and is ranked third. The Caitlyn Jenner page in comparison only receives ~800 links from other Wikipedia pages and yet is seemingly one of Wikipedia's most viewed pages.

Bill Clinton has been viewed 215579 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 701 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org. (time frame for second sentence not specified).

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been viewed 154972 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 1996 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.

Hillary Clinton has been viewed 17552 times in the last 30 days.

I personally think that Hillary is suffering from the fact that an early decision was taken to back Bill's political career. The effect now is that, even when she personally stands for election, she is still electronically regarded, in some ways, as and accessory of Bill's. Hillary currently has higher profile but, unless a news search is undertaken, you would never guess it. Now there is a case of systemic bias for you.

GregKaye 07:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a systemic bias. Outside the U.S., Hillary is still a non-entity/non-event, whereas Bill has been globally active and globally in the news -- unceasing in his good works, foundations, and support of other foundations -- and has been a household word around the world, since 1992. Hillary hasn't, and that was shown repeatedly by non-American participants in the move request. It also has nothing to do with supporting Bill's presidency -- that doesn't and didn't register outside the U.S. All of that said, hopefully the article-name change will help, but really American elections are not the global be-all and end-all that Americans think they are, unless there is the possibility of a radical change as there was from G. W. Bush to possibly a black Democrat. Lastly, one problem that Google seems to have is that Wikipedia articles seem to come up higher if the exact parameter (in this case, "hillary clinton") occurs in the first sentence of the article, which it still doesn't in this article. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And Bill is, I think, internationally renowned for having being a relatively great president. In the current situation this is in some ways an unfortunate situation for Hillary as, despite being sought for, her reference in Wikipedia is not separately listed. I will certainly find it of interest to see when if at all Hillary becomes separately listed. I think that this eventuality may face a challenge related to a potential closed loop. Google listings do not give Hillary's article prominence even, I believe, in U.S. .com searches (coming second to news). As a result of this and being placed as a sub link to Bill in other parts of the world, this may mean that Hillary's article gets less traffic than it might. Getting less traffic would mean that Hillary's article is less likely to be given prominent presentation in Google listings and the circle continues. Given what I take to be an unfortunate situation I think that it might be fair to give Hillary's article something like featured article status on the main page. GregKaye 11:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles often come first in Google rankings, but I don't think it's a goal of the project to try and improve the rankings of pages that don't. bd2412 T 11:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence currently reads:

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (/ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/ ; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and former United States Secretary of State in the administration of President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013; a former United States Senator representing New York from 2001 to 2009; and, as the wife of President Bill Clinton, was First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001.

I propose to drop the /ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/ as I don't particularly see a difficulty in pronunciation and perhaps that we could present:

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née Rodham; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and former United States Secretary of State in the administration of President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013; a former United States Senator representing New York from 2001 to 2009; and, as the wife of President Bill Clinton, was First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001.

I think that some clarification between middle name and birth family name may be instructive. We are also presenting the name "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" which has been used elsewhere but which may be an unsubstantiated amalgamation between "Hillary Diane Rodham" (birth name) and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (name used in role as author and as secretary of state and in signatures).

GregKaye 15:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox and image captions

The recent RfC closed with the decision to change the title from HRC to HC. Was the RfC about changing the title of the article? Or did it discuss renaming the person herself as well. I thought it was just about the article title, and the thrust of the main argument in favour of the move was based on WP:AT.

Presently, a number of editors are edit-warring on this BLP to force controversial changes into it, in violation of WP:BLP, which is policy, and WP:BRD, which is sound advice. Please don't try to bully your POV into this BLP if others disagree with your bold change. It is best to engage in civil discussion on the talk page.

One of the edit-warriers, User:Calidum, said in one of his edit summaries, "Template says to use common name, which we just established is Hillary Clinton. stop wikilawyering." Calidum, would you please point me to the documentation you're referring to? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected one day to allow for discussion. Note that edit summaries don't count as discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Image is sourced to this page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • So what? State.gov captions the images of Colin Powell as Colin Luther Powell[2], but that's not how we caption his image on his WP page. So that's no basis to use "Rodham" in the caption for her photo. You're really reaching. --В²C ☎ 17:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, it's a very good basis - it is true to the source . . . and do you still not understand that Rodham is not her middle name. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I've just looked at Template:Infobox_person#Parameters which says the "name" parameter should be the common name (defaults to article title when left blank). So I'm OK with that part of your change, В²C. Please don't try to force a change of image captions without checking with your collaborators here first. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)