Talk:Hillary Clinton

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 Wikipedia, 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.

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016

I thnk you should

Noidontwantto (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Should what? —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

New related article

Huh. Eyes needed on this new related article that has just been linked to in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Should go straight to AE. Weasel upon weasel upon synth. Where are the tough decisive Admins of yore? SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly one may believe that no media attention should have been given to the alleged relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department. But it has and therefore the article meets notablity. Fortunately the extensive media attention allows us to write a fair article and we can, in fact must, present the Clinton view that there was no connection. TFD (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but "...has been the subject of controversy..." Weasel me this. The discussion about the emails had to do with the security of State Dept. information. There's a fundamental question here, namely does WP want to have POV editors exploiting the page view status of WP to create new topics that insinuate political talking points into web search results?

My Google search for "state department"+"clinton foundation" shows the first hits are for articles at the Center for Research on Globalization, RT and the National Review (all of which sites are hostile to Clinton), followed by negative stories in mainstream U.S. media. Certainly a Wikipedia article at the top of the list covering the whole story with due weight to all the various views would be a public service. TFD (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Did the creators bother to cite any RS calling anything a "controversy" or is this all OR synth? SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Atlantic uses that terminology.[1] But we do not need a source for a name chosen. I suppose the best known name is "Pay for Play," but that title may be prejudicial. TFD (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's up to editors to make up titles, how about "The panoply of recent suspicion and undocumented accusations concerning Sec'y Clinton, including innuendo concerning events so ordinary that no mainstream comment can be found to provide context or perspective." SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've attached an NPOV tag to the article. It should probably be thoroughly rewritten, merged, or deleted. We don't create POVFORK articles about everything that a politician's opponents decide to spin as a controversy, only the more notable ones. I've also removed the material and link added to this article by one of the article's creators, as being undue and POV. FWIW, I would recommend against going to arbitration enforcement as a first step to a content dispute, or with anything that is not a clearcut behavioral issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree about AE. However there is a small army of POV pushers who behave as if they were political activists here rather than editors and who seem to be motivated by concern that a Pres. Clinton would nominate a Supreme Court justice whom they would oppose. Various editors need soothing TBANs. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes and it's getting pretty ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Holy crap. Thanks for the heads up. That's a shameless POV fork and over the top POV pushing. It's disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I've nominated that article for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Current picture of Hillary Clinton

A current pic should definitely appear on this page, especially since her health is an active campaign issue. It doesn't need to be the pic at top right, but it should be immediately below that or appear within the text, near the top of the page, so that it is as prominently displayed as the pic at top right. The absence of a current pic proclaims editorial bias. (Ditto everything for the Donald Trump article.) Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Does she look particularly unhealthy in recent pictures? AFAIK she looks about the same as she does in the current picture. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are several pics circulating within YouTube in which she looks 20 years older. I'd insert one myself but I can't verify that they are undoctored or certify as to their origin. The key point is that the article is materially incomplete without a truthful and clear picture of what she really looks like today, on the eve of an election in which her health is a significant campaign issue. Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As you have noted, pictures "circulating within YouTube" are of questionable provenance, given the ease with which images can be distorted with Photoshop and other programs like that. Images used in Wikipedia are subject to the same requirements of verifiability and reliability as anything else, and must either be in the public domain or must be released by the original photographer under a suitable license for inclusion here. The first step to being able to include any images here is to find the photographers who originally took the pictures and have them release their rights. bd2412 T 02:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I certainly don't oppose a current picture- though it should be done just to have a current picture, not because she looks 'unhealthy'(which merely being older is not). 331dot (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like on articles about politicians, we typically use an official headshot. This is in keeping with the policy outlined at WP:MUG, that mandates caution in using photos that may portray the subject in a false light. This trumps any question of whether it is an "active campaign issue". If there is a more recent official headshot that is under a Wikipedia-compatible license (e.g., if it is in the public domain), then we can use that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There's always been an unofficial Wikipedia guideline of using the last available official portrait of a politician. Don't worry, a "current" picture will be put up when the White House releases her new portrait after her inauguration. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a little different because she has no official position, but has a high profile as the Democratic candidate. Maybe we could get a campaign photo. TFD (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Are there reliable third-party sources telling us that they already know she will win the election, or is this speculation?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. We should continue with the existing convention for the infobox, particularly as this is the article on Hillary Clinton, not the campaign. Besides, she is running as the former Secretary of State and is referred to by the media as "Secretary Clinton". More recent pictures, including one as recent as April of this year, are already in the article. Also, I should add that we should not be using Wikipedia to give credence to this bullshit right-wing stuff about Clinton's health being an issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to depart from the policy regarding the pic at top right of the page. My request would be fulfilled completely if a current picture that truthfully depicted her as she actually looks on the campaign trail is displayed near the top of the page within the text. Not a photographer's portrait. No studio. No airbrushing. A real photograph that is undoctored and that the community agrees is a fair, truthful representation. Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The Wiki thumbnail that I selected does not appear. I wanted it to appear at the left near the paragraph that begins, "As First Lady...". Someone please help by debugging my edit. Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of that image. You must gain consensus first. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That's censorship unless you had good cause to revert it. Forcing contributions that you don't personally like to meet the consensus hurdle without good cause is despicable behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideafarmcity (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Censorship it is not. I wish I got a dollar for every time someone cried that. This is a biography of a living person who is controversial and running for the highest office in this country. Firm consensus is needed for controversial/contentious edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is censorship, since there was nothing controversial about my edit. I didn't pick an unflattering pic or anything like that. Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The current picture is 7 years, or more accurately 2784 days old. There is a Commons category with over a hundred pictures of her in 2016 (see subcategories): Commons:Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016. I don't see why it couldn't be updated in the infobox. --Pudeo 16:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Because of FAQ point #3 and the OP of this section has a major POV problem ([2])? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

+1 see the FAQ. We use her official government headshot, just like every other US politician. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Clinton's official portrait is fine, as is standard. And a hefty "No" to conspiracy theories might also be required here. Acalamari 22:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not! We certainly don't want any of those people to have a voice here! (If it's not a statement approved by the thought-mob, it must not be true.) Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, we will only have to wait until after the Inauguration for a new official portrait we can use. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The current "official" photo - 'shopped, retouched - is unrealistic. Considering she looks about 5-7 years older than she actually is, a current photo would be honest, at least. 50.111.25.178 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Massive focus on Clinton's health *and* her appearance? Isn't there anything better to do? Acalamari 16:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The second image I see on the page (in the "Hillary Clinton Series" part of the infobox) is from January 2016. I'd say that is "recent" by most standard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

health

there should be a subsection about her health as its a big issue related to her campaign now. her doctor just announced she has pneumonia.--174.112.29.187 (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No, there isn't. There's lots of unscrupulous and unreliable speculation on her health. There is zero reliable sources that report that her health is a problem. There are reliable sources reporting that unreliable sources are making false claims about her health. That's not the same thing. --Jayron32 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theories manufactured by the Alt-Right have no place in this article - or anywhere, for that matter. Acalamari 00:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It certainly has no place in the biography.- MrX 01:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

She is being treated with antibiotics, and thus has bacterial pneumonia. All we have learned from this is that, like all humans, she is susceptible to bacterial infections. This is not indicative of any chronic health condition. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That she caught a common disease is not noteworthy. Especially not for her bio. Adding something about the right-wing side of the media making an issue out of her health, and Trump being the main reason for that, could go in the campaign page. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And something about the left-wing media and her supporters performing an under-the-rug sweeping of the concerns of many now have after today's incident could be included too. When this actually becomes an issue on both sides of the media aisle, will it then be appropriate for this BLP article? Or are health issues only mentioned in campaign articles? (yes, that was sarcasm, in case anyone was wondering) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mainstream non-partisan media are vastly raising this incident as a legit concern. It should be appropriately addressed on the article. Drako (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That she apparently has a common disease? no thank you! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

http://www.naturalnews.com/055253_Hillary_Clinton_Parkinsons_disease_health_diagnosis.html is this reliable ？ --12.39.178.119 (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That website promotes conspiracies and other fiction, and the "doctor" in the article is another one of those "TV diagnoses" - i.e. diagnosing someone without performing any sort of examination on them. Not at all ethical or appropriate. In short, no. Acalamari 09:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Her multiple coughing attacks, current pneumonia, and her consistent refusal to release her extended medical records are simple facts. There is no need to hide any of that.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Clinton also has a head, two arms and two legs. Let's not forget about mentioning those important facts! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No, WP:NOTBLUE does not apply here. Coughing attacks, pneumonia and secret extended medical records are not the norm for presidential candidates. They are abnormal developments. And reliable third-party sources have highlighted it many times.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Hence, there are plenty of others who disagree with you. You see it as a big conspiracy, I see it as not a big deal. Media outlets, reliable and third-party they may be, document many things under the sun – that does not make it noteworthy. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not an opinion. It is what the American electorate can read in reliable third-party sources. It makes Wikipedia look bad if we don't include it. We want to make sure Wikipedia is seen as a serious trove of information, indeed as a reliable encyclopedia. Ergo, we can't redact whatever sounds like an inconvenient truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It makes Wikipedia look bad if we report everything that is written in the news one day, and gone the next. Maybe try WikiNews? this is an encyclopedia, however, and I don't believe that this common disease Clinton has will be noteworthy in a year's time, or 10. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec) No candidate is under any obligation to release medical records; therefore not doing so isn't an issue. Donald Trump hasn't either, just a note written in five minutes after a phone call while the car waited outside. Are you over on that page asking the same thing you are here? I already know the answer. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

But reliable third-party sources have made it a campaign issue. We cannot, and shouldn't try to, control the narrative.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times: "The topic of Hillary Clinton’s health, about which her opponent, Donald J. Trump, and his supporters have raised questions for months, was thrust into the center of the campaign on Sunday." [3] Wikipedians controlling this article: Nothing do wo with Hillary or the campaign. Alright! --Pudeo (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you over at the Donald Trump talk page asking the same questions as here? 331dot (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia articles rest on reliable third-party sources. Many such sources talk about her multiple coughing attacks, pneumonia, and consistent refusal to release her extended medical records. As Wikipedia editors, we shouldn't pick and choose only convenient sources to fit a certain narrative. We should simply relay this information.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you answer my question? There is no narrative being presented here, despite the conspiracy you think there is. HRC can't sneeze without it being reported in the press. We aren't here to parrot the press. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

We do have to use reliable third-party sources. This talkpage is about HRC, not Trump. Reliable third-party sources have made her health an issue, and we have to include it at this point.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The point is that you are here talking about HRC and wanting to discuss her supposed medical problems and not releasing medical records(which she legally doesn't have to do) while not making the same demands over at Donald Trump's article. Who's the one biased again? 331dot (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This talkpage is about HRC. I am a volunteer editor and I spend my time trying to improve whichever article I want, whenever I want. I spend my free time however I choose. Now, I don't particularly want to discuss her health. Reliable third-party sources have. Because I love Wikipedia, I want it to reflect the depth of reliable third-party sources and thus be seen as an unbiased, serious encyclopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You can certainly pick and choose what you want to edit, but that doesn't mean your biases aren't reflected in your choices. You want to treat HRC differently than Donald Trump. If you "love Wikipedia", you should want each article to be treated the same. If you don't, that's fine, but then you should be honest about it. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I have zero bias. But please don't turn this into a forum to avoid discussing the real issue based on reliable third-party sources--her health.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That's difficult to believe when you aren't making the same demands of Donald Trump's page, and in fact have said that you have no intention of doing so. That's all fine, I just want you to be honest. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I have zero bias but who cares? There is no need to personalize Wikipedia editors. We are nobodies. What matters is content within reliable third-party sources, and our responsibility to make sure articles reflect that. Let's focus on this.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Very disappointing. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

But that source isn't even reporting on her health, it's reporting on the "issue" and perception of her health. That's clear from reading the article. --FeldBum (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Further, everyone has biases, even me. I try to be fair but no one can be totally objective. The key is in being honest about one's biases. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• There is already a place where people can find all of these so-called "facts" about Clinton: It's called Conservapedia, as well as Breitbart.com and Infowars (and possibly Stormfront, too). We don't need to repeat all of their garbage here. Did those who demand every negative thing about Clinton to be put into her article also argue that Trump's pointless fight with the Khan family feature significantly in his article when it was big news a month ago? Hmm...no. Acalamari 11:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't try to discourage one of the Most Active Wikipedians from editing, just because you don't like what reliable third-party sources say. See WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. We have so-called "negative" content about Trump (Duke's endorsement, Melania's RNC speech); we don't try to ostracize editors who want to add it, but we discuss it and agree when third-party sources have the upper hand.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I've also never visited the websites you mention, so please don't make assumptions and don't try to turn this into a forum to avoid discussing the real issue based on reliable third-party sources--her health.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want to play the "most active" game, I outrank you and telling me to read the bluelink above - for a page that I'm most certainly familiar with - is equally "discouraging". And I never said you visited any of those websites; rather, hysteria about her health (something that has only been made an issue by conspiracy theorists and peddled by the Alt-Right; the pneumonia is merely poor timing but doesn't validate wild conspiracies) is more appropriate on those sites. Acalamari 12:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There are many (countless?) articles about it in reliable third-party sources. The Washington Post. The Guardian. The New York Times. CNN. NBC News, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

All of those just parrot the opinions of HRC opponents and are just opinions. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think not. It's not from The Washington Times. Most of those publications lean towards the left.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, you have repeated "reliable third-party sources" 13 times in this section alone as if it's some sort of magical incantation. Please read WP:ONUS, WP:!TRUTHFINDERS, and WP:TE and please quit repeating the same arguments ad nauseum.- MrX 12:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I have no bias. Reliable third-party sources may do, but that shouldn't be our problem. This is not about me or us--it's about content we can use to improve the article. I am probably an extremely boring person; no need to talk about me. Please let us know how we can use those sources constructively--or why we should ignore them--that is all I care about. But we can't dismiss the entire media as biased or fringe when we don't like it. (Otherwise, shall we do this with Trump? I think not.) That is not our job.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON. The same comments, reworded, rinse and repeat. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Please try to focus on the content if you can. I must finish reading two books, so I can't comment much more today.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am here opposing the addition of unencylopedic content that you and a few others would like to add. But you don't seem to be getting it. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. One could start an RfC, in light of RS weight. But she is too busy today!Zigzig20s (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh goody! another RfC destined to reinstate the view that this kind of health-conspiracy crap, does not belong in a BLP article. Bring it on, I say. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This editor does not need additional encouragement. In all my years of editing Wikipedia, I have never encountered an editor more happy to abuse the RfC process than Zigzig20s. RfCs are for when consensus cannot be met because of a deadlock, but Zigzig20s uses them as a form of forum shopping to try to overturn a consensus, then responds to every single disagreeing comment to try to bludgeon editors to change their mind out of sheer exasperation. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please focus on content. I am boring, not important, not worth your time. Forget me. I did not event start the RfC about HRC's health. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You see? You can't help yourself. You just have to comment, even when it serves no useful purpose. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• In my view, whether Hillary Clinton has pneumonia is not an important biographical detail that rises to the level of WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in the article. Because of the coming US election, transient events like this appear to take on a heightened significance, in part because the media fills the 24 news cycle with every triviality related to the campaign. But incidents like this are typically of only passing significance. If it becomes a major ongoing issue, such as complications requiring hospitalization, permanent incapacitation, or such, then I believe it would be worth inclusion, but a few days' illness during the campaign is definitely not a biographically definitive detail, and should be left out in light of WP:BLPGOSSIP. Sławomir
  Biały 13:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that the current article spends just six paragraphs on the 2016 campaign. In order to be discussed in the main Clinton article, it must be a very significant aspect of the election or campaign. If, as other editors have asserted, there is "something to it", then I have no doubt that there will be a Congressional inquiry into the matter, at which point it can be discussed in the main article. Until then, though, it really doesn't belong here, as it assigns undue weight to a fairly minor incident. Sławomir
Biały 14:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight for the inclusion of yesterday's incident into this article. That said, this is going to become a bigger deal as the week goes on. It wasn't just allergies. That morphed into being overheated. Then, that claim by the campaign morphed into into the pneumonia explanation. Then, the pneumonia explanation expanded to her being diagnosed on Friday and it wasn't just a recent finding. The story keeps changing, but it keeps growing, too. More and more respected news outlets are covering it and the campaign keeps responding with a bigger explanation. It's not just gossip, it's not a silly conspiracy theory -- as editors here seem to be trying to dismiss it. There's something to it and it will become content that should be included in this article. Because it isn't just her being sick, there was an incident along with it and incidents like this (with so many official explanations and expansions of those explanations) always turn into something when it comes to public figures, politicians, and celebrities. Mark my words. If I'm wrong, I guess I owe someone a drink or steak dinner. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important for editors to understand that this is the main Hillary Clinton biography, and there is no way in a million years a minor, temporary health issue is going to make it into this article without being an egregious violation of WP:WEIGHT. The proper place for this discussion is the campaign article talk page, where it is already being debated (and quite rightly so). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know what will happen but in the interests of disclosure I have requested full protection of the article for a short time. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've declined the request as "not yet". A reminder that the same restrictions apply here as they do on the Trump page: "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please remove this (posted by an IP address)? It looks like a desperate attempt to discredit this serious discussion and, by extension, Wikipedia. Pure vandalism. If anyone is able to track the IP address, things could get interesting...Zigzig20s (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Done. Would you be willing to remove your request, and my reply, per WP:Don't feed the trolls? --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: Thank you! No, I think we should keep it here as the origin of the IP address might (or might not) be significant.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually that was me. The IP address is available in the history if anyone wants it. I personally don't think we should be calling attention to it in the discussion, but it's your call since it is your post. (If you do decide to delete it, delete my replies as well) --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The questions about Clinton's ongoing health issues, for right now, probably should be addressed in the campaign article. Once her staff releases her full medical records, which the mainstream media is now calling for, then a section on it here would probably be appropriate. TweedVest (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this recent incident could be mentioned at the campaign article. I don't see any place for it in her biography at this point. (Pneumonia is not a major medical issue; it is a disease like a cold. I have had "walking pneumonia" several times, it doesn't necessarily have any relation to, or lasting effect on, your overall health.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There are different types of pneumonia. Being literally drug unmoving into a car, and having to cancel the next weeks campaign events seems like perhaps a more serious case. Although I agree that at this point this is only a campaign issue, not a blp issue unless it turns out to derail her. Regarding your IP, if you would like it redacted, an admin will revdel the IP for you from the history as well as the talk page. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I am an admin. I do not want it revdeled, in fact I want it kept in the history for future reference. I was asking if Zigzig would be willing to revert their own post here, per WP:DENY, but if they prefer not to that is their call. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It may or may not be a major health issue, but it is usually a symptom of a larger health issue. TFD (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless you're a medical doctor and you've examined her yourself, you're unqualified to say anything like that. Your comment a borderline BLP violation. Maybe it's just the symptom of campaigning really hard with little to no rest. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I said, "it is usually a symptom of a larger health issue." We can same for example that cancer is often fatal without being medical doctors. If you think there is a borderline BLP issue, then get off the pot and go to AE. TFD (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether that is true or not, that's a reasonable observation to make or question to ask around the campfire, or perhaps in an idle Wikipedia discussion over whether the issue may someday become significant enough to cover. However, speculation over the medical pathology behind a biographical subject's common medical symptom cannot possibly justify content in the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The democratic party operatives here as Wiki editors are extremely biased on this issue. As an independent, this information is of great interest to me - as is Trump's latest combover attempt. She's sick. She's probably had walking pneumonia for some time, judging by her persistent coughing attacks over the past couple of years. This article is supposed to follow NPOV - Clinton campaigners, please step off, and let the information be properly cited and added to the article. Do you really think you can 'hide' this by keeping it off Wiki? Please. 50.111.25.178 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to make a claim of "Democratic Party operatives" at work here, please provide evidence that any user is a Democratic operative. No one wants to hide anything, but there are ways to about doing it and guidelines to follow, such as WP:WEIGHT. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow...armchair diagnosing in addition to making unfounded claims about other editors... Acalamari 16:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

June 5

The date on which she achieved enough delegates to be considered the presumptive nominee was not June 6, based on the flawed NYT article footnoted at 441, but June 5. The 37 pledged delegates elected on June 5 in the Puerto Rico presidential primary, plus unplugged delegates that committed to her in the course of that day and evening (i.e. Puerto Rico's two remaining uncommitted super delegates Andrés W.López and Liza Ortiz) put her over the top. A quick look at the NYT article written the following day referenced in footnote #441 will show that the article makes no reference to the previous day's primary in Puerto Rico, where 60 pledged delegates were at stake, the US territory is not shown nor mentioned in the national map of delegates and is not listed in the purportedly "full" list of delegates, as if the 37 delegates elected on June 5 pledged to Clinton did not exist. Late on the night of June 5, it was already being said that that day's elected delegates and super delegate commitments had put her over the top. This edit den,instates that even a NYT article can be inaccurate.Pr4ever (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Village Pump Discussion

There is currently a discussion at the Village Pump (Proposals) that may be relevant to the subject of this article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2016

I have information that could lead to Hillary's arrest. BoopDaSnek (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)