Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tpkatsa (talk | contribs) at 19:36, 5 May 2021 (→‎Remove Donald Trump from lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleHillary Clinton is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 21, 2019.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 7, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 21, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
February 28, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
May 27, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 18, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
June 6, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
December 13, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 7, 2015, November 7, 2018, and November 7, 2020.
Current status: Featured article

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

In the section on her comments on Trump, 'despite winning the election' should be changed to 'despite winning the Electoral College' for clarity; it can be argued that either of them won the electiom as she reieved more votes. Changing to 'Electoral College' removed the ambigiuty. TheJamesifer (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. That sentence doesn't appear in the article. I think I see what you're referring to, but in either case, there's only one plain meaning of "winning the election", despite the oddities of how an ultimate winner is determined. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2020

I THINK YOU SHOULD ADD THAT SHE TRIED RUNNING FOOT OFFICE CallumPoole7200 (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the Foot Office, but the article mentions her running for the office of President.Crboyer (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2020

Change "In January 2011, Clinton traveled to Haiti in order to help pave the way for the election of Michel Martelly." to "In January 2011, Clinton traveled to Haiti in order to pressure the president of Haiti into complying with international intervention in Haitian elections, a US-funded mission[2] which was later found to produce inaccurate election results.[3]" [1]: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/0131/Hillary-Clinton-presses-Haiti-s-Rene-Preval-to-break-election-stalemate [2]: https://haitiliberte.com/how-the-oas-has-subverted-elections-in-bolivia-and-haiti/ [3]: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/haitis-rigged-election/ (The original phrasing is problematic because it frames the visit as typical courteous diplomacy, while the PM at the time has been quoted as saying, "We tried to resist and did, until the visit of Hillary Clinton. That was when Préval understood he had no way out and accepted." In fact, she and her department played a significant role in forcing intervention that turned out to be based on inaccurate readings, arguably delegitimizing the results.)

Also, change "In July 2010, she visited South Korea, where she and Cheryl Mills worked to convince SAE-A, a large apparel subcontractor, to invest in Haiti despite the company's deep concerns about plans to raise the minimum wage." to "In July 2010, she visited South Korea, where she and Cheryl Mills worked to convince SAE-A, a large apparel subcontractor, to invest in Haiti. The company held deep concerns about plans to raise the minimum wage, though Clinton's State Department previously worked closely with other companies and the government itself to urge against raising the minimum wage by 37 cents.[1]" [1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-haiti-us-pushed-to-lower-minimum-wage/ (Again, the original article makes mention of this subject in a detached manner. The fact she oversaw the subversion of that very law should be included, as it emphasizes her role.) Fuwafuwano (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. First request's wording is confusing. What international intervention? Who found the results to be inaccurate? Second request is WP:SYNTH. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton's predatory relationship with Haiti during her position as Secretary of State is misrepresented as helpful.

Request 1: change "In January 2011, Clinton traveled to Haiti in order to help pave the way for the election of Michel Martelly." to "In January 2011, Clinton traveled to Haiti in order to pressure the president of Haiti into complying with OAS-led international intervention in Haitian elections.[1] CEPR found that the intervention, a mission to recalculate vote counts[2], contradicted actual polling results (which would have eliminated the candidate who won the presidency) and was suggestive of bias within OAS[3].

[1]https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/0131/Hillary-Clinton-presses-Haiti-s-Rene-Preval-to-break-election-stalemate [2]https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-461/10 [3]https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/haiti-2011-01.pdf (I fixed the wording of my original request so as to acknowledge exactly which international intervention and who found the results to be inaccurate, as prompted.)

Request 2: change "In July 2010, she visited South Korea, where she and Cheryl Mills worked to convince SAE-A, a large apparel subcontractor, to invest in Haiti despite the company's deep concerns about plans to raise the minimum wage." to "In July 2010, she visited South Korea, where she and Cheryl Mills worked to convince SAE-A, a large apparel subcontractor, to invest in Haiti. The company held deep concerns about plans to raise the minimum wage, though Clinton's State Department previously urged the Haitian president against raising the minimum wage[1] by 37[2] cents, so as to assist sweatshop owners.[3]”

[1]https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Haitians-Workers-Fight-for-Higher-Minimum-Wage-Suppressed-by-Clintons-State-Department-20170522-0037.html [2]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-haiti-us-pushed-to-lower-minimum-wage/ [3]https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day/ (I added two, lengthier sources that eliminate the possibility of original research on my part. My paraphrasing is supported by the following sentences: "To resolve the impasse between the factory owners and Parliament, the State Department urged quick intervention by then Haitian President René Préval.” Said factory owners "refused to pay 62 cents per hour, or $5 per day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian Parliament in June 2009 would have mandated.” "According to memos obtained by Wikileaks in 2008 and 2009, the U.S. State Department blocked a proposal to increase the minimum wage in Haiti.” "The U.S. State Department subsequently brought pressure to bear on Haiti's president,” "...American clothing makers with factories in Haiti were displeased after the government raised the minimum wage more than two and a half times the previous minimum 24 cents an hour.” "The Nation published a scoop - momentarily - on its website about Wikileaks cables revealing pressure from Washington on Haiti's government not to raise the national minimum wage to 61 cents an hour.") Fuwafuwano (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold off until NY state results are certified, but we will probably be adding this page to "Category:2020 United States presidential electors"

Hold off until NY state results are certified, but we will probably be adding this page to "Category:2020 United States presidential electors". This category, not yet existing, will be created once electors are formally assigned following the certification of state results. Clinton, on the nominated slate of Dem electors for New York state, will apparently be serving as an elector, as dems are reported to have carried NY state in the presidential race. However, results are not yet certified, and until they are, she is not yet an elector. SecretName101 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

Please add the following navboxes to the foot of the article, consistent with other major party nominees for Presidents, Senators, and Cabinet members (see Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry for just a few such examples of articles with navboxes.

73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, those boxes were previously on the page until late August. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, the edit reason says it was removed per the lack of boxes at Donald Trump, but that page seems to be an outlier.73.110.217.186 (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been the editor who removed it. No objections to it being restored. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be added back?73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do it since I'm on an IP.73.110.217.186 (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 Dec

change "She was the first woman to win the popular vote in an American presidential election, which she lost to Donald Trump." To "she was the first woman to win the popular vote in an American presidential election but lost the votes of the electoral college, whom she won the second place in.' Quadmuffs (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Not an improvement, the proposed text makes the situation less clear and less grammatical. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

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

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

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

Remove Donald Trump from lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undue weight on her religious beliefs

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

Ordering of offices in infobox

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

The current infobox structuring should remain in place when it is agreed upon that the date of January 2, 2020 occurred after the periods of 1993 to 2001, 2001 to 2009, and 2009 to 2013. KidAd talk 03:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KidAd, why? I've given MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE to support my position. Is there a guideline that states these offices must be ordered chronologically? ― Tartan357 Talk 03:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357, where in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE does it state that time passes non-linearly? I fail to see how MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE supports your argument at all. KidAd talk 03:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KidAd, I have not stated that time passes non-linearly. Your sarcastic comment is insulting and borderline WP:UNCIVIL. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357, my "sarcastic comment" is a perfectly-valid point that you have failed to address. Why order the infobox non-linearly? You haven't explained any potential reasoning. KidAd talk 03:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KidAd, my argument is obviously not that "time passes non-linearly". That's insane. My argument is that the most relevant positions for the infobox are the ones of greatest importance. I think it's most useful to the readers to have the positions of greatest prominence at the top. That's not saying that time is non-linear. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is insane. Glad we can agree on that. Ordering the infobox non-linearly will only confuse readers. KidAd talk 03:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, your comment about me supposedly saying time passes non-linearly is what I'm calling insane. I am not agreeing with you. Stop trying to WP:GASLIGHT me. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove it from the info-box as not significant. University chancellors in Commonwealth countries is a figurehead position and more of an honor than anything. It's not as if she is actually living in Belfast or doing anything at the university. TFD (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^ I support this more than ordering the infobox non-linearly. KidAd talk 04:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Four Deuces, I agree, let's just remove it. It's not really even a political office. ― Tartan357 Talk 10:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure, but sometimes we do not list in order of chronology when one office is much higher than the others. But even then, that seems to be done retroactive, when they no longer hold any of the offices, and not while they are an incumbent. But, at other times, it seems we stick to conology, even when an office is much higher than others subsequently held. SecretName101 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that in the U.S., the chancellor is a full time officer of the university, while in Commonwealth countries that position is held by the vice-chancellor (often called the president) and the chancellor is a figurehead position. Ian Greer for example is the vice-chancellor and president of Queen's University Belfast. Unlike the chancellor, he has an office there, staff report to him and he is paid for his work. High profile people like Clinton can hold multiple chancellorships and non-executive positions in numerous organizations. Clinton was chairman of the New World Foundation, the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession and the Children's Defense Fund, yet none of these are in the info-box. TFD (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While several articles about living persons mention British Empire and Commonwealth chancellorships in the infobox, most historical ones do not. For example, Oliver Cromwell, Richard Cromwell, Lord North, the Duke of Wellington, Lord Salisbury, Lord Curzon and Harold Macmillan were Chancellors of the University of Oxford, but it is not mentioned in their info-boxes. However it has been added for Roy Jenkins and Chris Patten. TFD (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

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

 Not done: That photo is already in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but nearly every other politician of similar rank has their official portrait from when they were in office, with the bizarre exception of Hillary Clinton and Walter Mondale. Why the differing standards? Frevangelion (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Book article

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

Photo Change Consensus

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

Hillary in 2016

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

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

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

User:Deepfriedokra (orange butt icon Buttinsky) -esque, without a doubt! Haha. Sounds good to me. Thank you! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:SecretName101 Makes total sense! I posted this in hopes more people would have chimed in, but thought sometimes “no news, is good news” . I agree more people should concur. And it’s not that I have a problem with this one other than it being of a profile. I feel that the one I changed it to was better though, a more portrait style photograph of equal if not better quality! Since the lead image is the first thing to catch the reader's eye. It felt like the better option! Let me know your thoughts! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that consensus does not mean agreement by one or two people, and needs some time to pass - not 3 days - so more people can consider and discuss a potential change. My view on this, as a 14 year editor of this article, is the photo you propose is not a better representation of her than what is currently in the article, so I am not in favor of this change. I will point out that the usual practice here would be to use an official portrait from the last office held - Secretary of State for her - but in this case since her subsequent career development as Presidential candidate is certainly more significant than any of her previous positions, using a photo from the 2016 campaign seems to me to be the right decision. If there is an official campaign portrait that meets our guidelines for use I'd be interested in reviewing it - but this photo you suggest is not it and arguably not at all an improvement. Appreciate your input, but we do try to keep this article as stable as possible, so encourage discussion and consensus before significant changes are made, and the top photo is certainly significant. Tvoz/talk 18:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tvoz Hello! I should’ve done more research on the true definition of a consensus on Wikipedia. For that I apologize like I stated earlier in this thread. The photo I proposed is also from the 2016 campaign, Hillary was speaking with supporters at her campaign rally at the Intramural Fields at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona as the photo details stated. In my mind, this photo on the commons that I proposed more accurately shows what Hillary Clinton looks like. We have a clear view of her entire face as opposed to a distant side profile shot that is in place now. Obviously you being on here for as long as you have and your dedication to this page I will agree with your thoughts if you feel it’s better. Thanks for discussing!  Thanks Elvisisalive95 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No ownership implied by my comment, just an historic view of the article. No apology needed. Tvoz/talk 21:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elvisisalive95: Personally, I think the current photo is significantly better than the photo you’ve proposed. I think the overall quality of the photo is dramatically less, i.e., the microphone covering a quarter of the photo and all of her torso. Additionally, the proposed photo is actually of less quality and in much lower definition (994 x 1,310) than the original (2,245 x 2,995). I’m happy to see a new photo be suggested; however, I don’t think this one is it. For those reasons, my vote is no. Take care, stay safe!
thirsty 22:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"Hillary Diane Rodham Clinotn" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

pingas

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton&oldid=1021629170"