Talk:Hillary Clinton

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

Claim of editorializing

Perhaps Ajax1995 can explain this reversion more fully? Since it is attributed to a respected journalist from a reliable source, how can the edit summary of "WP:EDITORIALIZING Multiple issues; Biased information, blatant violation NPOV, not encyclopaedic value. No article, No entry. UNACCEPTABLE: "Clinton definitely has the political skills that an officeholder needs". Please save it to Univision/Telemundo" be justified? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Lots of respected journalists like Hillary Clinton and some do not. What is the significance of this particular opinion piece? Btw, you also quote, ""Clearly, however, something seems to happen to Clinton when the task is asking people to vote for her." You would need to specify what happens. TFD (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

To add comments by some journalists is very useful (respected or not much), but this sentence, in specific, sounds too promotional, misplaced comments for an encyclopaedia, it seems like some Clinton´s presidential campaing ad; tomorrow is the presidential election, and Wikipedia must maintain the "Neutrality" and avoid biased content, besides the sentence is too vague/imprecise, "no clarity", Not encyclopaedic value at all. Salutes Ajax1995 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't my area of Wiki-expertise, but I agree with the above comments. I tend to be quite tentative when it comes to opinion essay-like and/or informally-toned news articles, because they don't give us much to work with in a Wikipedia article. On top of this, uncompromised neutrality is top-importance in an article about a current major presidential candidate; if we wish to include all significant viewpoints on Hillary, we have to use reliable sources (from e.g. reliable news services) that are formally written and reflect all viewpoints and are therefore neutral. The use of essay-like news articles, unless those articles are particularly notable, isn't helpful. As far as this particular news article and the use of it as a source goes, it falls under the essay-like and informally-toned categories, and therefore doesn't offer much to work with. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 18:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I was seeking an explanation for the complete mischaracterization in the edit summary, first and foremost. The excuse given for the removal of this content was completely invalid, because it suggested the content was written in Wikipedia's voice, thus casting aspersions on whomever added it (not me, by the way). As to the content itself, it provided context for what preceded it:

Her favorability ratings dropped, however, after she left office and began to be viewed in the context of partisan politics again. By September 2015, with her 2016 presidential campaign underway and beset by continued reports regarding her private email usage at the State Department, her ratings had slumped to some of her lowest levels ever. During 2016 she acknowledged that: "I'm not a natural politician, in case you haven't noticed." Journalist Indira A. R. Lakshmanan, who has covered Clinton extensively both as a presidential candidate and as secretary of state, believes that Clinton's persona is almost completely different in the two roles and that while Clinton definitely has the political skills that an officeholder needs, "Clearly, however, something seems to happen to Clinton when the task is asking people to vote for her.

With that context missing, the paragraph seems incomplete. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems UNDUE to me. A journalist's opinion should not appear in another person's biographical article. It doesn't matter if the journalist is prominent or not--an opinion is still an opinion. The only place where it could potentially appear would be in the journalist's own biographical article.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with removing it - even though the rationale in the edit summary is invalid and POV. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

1. bahahahahaha richf_in_tx (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

She lost

Can we please spell it out in the lede?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead already says Clinton won the popular vote but was defeated in the Electoral College by her Republican rival Donald Trump on November 8, 2016. clpo13_(talk) 19:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. This sounds POV to me. It sounds like an attempt to make it sound like she didn't really lose. She did.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Stating the facts is not POV. Anyone remotely familiar with American politics knows what that statement means. clpo13_(talk) 19:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

First, it is inappropriate to have this statement when all of the votes have yet to be counted. Second, the source must be changed regardless. The sources states:

"The Democratic candidate looks almost certain to win the popular vote, with the final ballots left to be counted. The margin is small – with only 0.2 percentage points between the two candidates – but Ms Clinton is winning and looks set to continue to do so."

It follows that the article is not "[s]tating the facts," as you suggest. "[A]lmost certain to win" does not equate with 'has won.' And with a 0.2 percentage difference, this statement is very, very premature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.208.111 (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Flip the electoral college and popular votes part. The electoral college is the more important part. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's backwards. That's not the way to put it. It should say something like "Clinton lost the presidential election to Donald Trump on November 8, 2016, although she narrowly won the popular vote." --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph should just say she won. We can include the popular vote v. electoral vote in the final paragraph. Otherwise foreign readers are bound to be confused.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I like MelanieN's wording. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec)On second thought I don't think the popular vote should be in the lede at all. Confusing to non-Americans. It should just say who won. Add the popular vote to the "general election" section after it is finalized. (In other words I agree with Zigzig.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, can someone please update the lede as per consensus then? I edited it once in the last 24 hours, so I can't.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think mentioning the popular vote is undue in the lead. It should be mentioned in the body however. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a highly notable historical fact, and has been mentioned in the lede of the comparable Al Gore article for as long as that article has existed - "Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College". bd2412 T 20:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's why I suggest a compromise of just saying she lost in the first paragraph, and mentioning the popular vote v. electoral college issue in the last paragraph of the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Gore and Clinton ledes on this point. Gore's is written in the active voice for the win and the loss. Clinton's is written in active voice for the win and passive voice for the loss. I'm not sure whether it's a substantive issue.Jthept (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of the popular vote stuff only makes an already excessively long lede even longer, and adds undue weight to the statement. It is confusing to those who are not familiar with the American system, and, due to it being quite irrelevant, gives it the appearance of not being of a neutral point of view.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think our handling of the matter should be consistent with Al Gore and Samuel J. Tilden. bd2412 T 21:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we please add "she lost" to the first paragraph of the lede? Most readers won't scroll down.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:OPENPARA, the first paragraph is meant to establish a person's notability. She's not notable for losing an election. clpo13_(talk) 21:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed about not mentioning the vote or electorate count in the first paragraph. It was a close election but not extremely or notably so, and most other articles about Presidents, foreign heads of state, and other politicians do not describe the vote margins in the first sentence of the lede. I don't think any reader of Wikipedia for the next hundred years would get confused as to whether she won the election if the first sentence says that she was the Democratic nominee for President without mentioning that she became President. However, we could say something like "she ran unsuccessfully for president as the Democratic nominee". That's a little awkward, but something like that works too. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree too. She's notable for being FLOTUS, Senator, Sec State. Not for losing the nomination in 2008 and the general in 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. It is perfectly notable that she lost two presidential bids.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You're not listening to what we're saying. Of course we include that she lost two presidential elections, but we don't say she lost in the opening paragraph. McCain and Romney's bios mention in their opening paragraph that they were presidential nominees, but it says nothing about whether they won or lost. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That is true - look at Al Gore, Mitt Romney, and John McCain (each of whom, incidentally, also lost two presidential bids). They are good models to follow here. bd2412 T 22:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Let's leave it out as. It's not among the most noteworthy facts about the subject. Al Gore seems to be a good model for how this should be treated in the lead.- MrX 22:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It seems to me that this is the most important aspect of her career: she tried to break the 'glass ceiling' (as she puts it), and lost. Also, why don't we say she was First Lady in the first paragraph?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We need to mention first that she lost and I do not think "won the popular vote" is accurate. She won more votes than Trump. But that should be mentioned because we want to know how close it was. Johnson, Stein, McMullin and many people I can't name were also losing candidates and it is relevant and we want to know how well she did. TFD (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The fact that she lost the election is mentioned in the lead. There's no reason to put it in the first paragraph. clpo13_(talk) 22:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It is the first time a First Lady tried to run for president and lost twice.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that makes much difference. Mitt Romney was the first Mormon to run for president and lose twice. John McCain was the first Vietnam POW to run for president and lose twice. bd2412 T 23:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Jesus. This thread might as well be called "What's the best way to spike the ball and dance in the endzone?" The fact that she lost isn't really worthy of the lede, and certainly not the beginning of the lede. The fact that she ran twice is of value. Personally, I think the specifics of how she lost (she'll win the popular vote by millions, but barely lose the Electoral College) is better explored in the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Millions"? Still shilling? Even CNN ([1]), which operated as an extension of the Clinton campaign through stretches of the election, has her "winning" the popular vote at 47.7%-47.5%. Yeah, 0.2%. That's about a difference of a little over 200,000 out of a total of under 120,000,000. As for "barely" losing the election itself, it was 279 to 228. It wasn't even close. Get a hold of yourself. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Look people. The only thing that matters is whether sources say "she won the popular vote but lost the election", all of your opinions are really irrelevant here. So... [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] ... and EVERY OTHER freakin' news organization.

Also, here is Al Gore's article: " Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College to Republican George W. Bush"

Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forget that nobody's opinion here matters but your own. That and Scjessey (talk · contribs)'s, right? Seriously, many of us have had to deal with your ideological, pro-Clinton and pro-DNC editing for months, and now you're trying to do this? Have some dignity. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No, my opinion doesn't matter either, what matters is reliable sources. Please strike your personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I have tweaked the wording, indicating that she lost the election, failing to obtain a majority in the electoral college, despite narrowly winning the popular vote. Hopefully this is now a suitable compromise. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that reads nicely and clearly explains the somewhat complicated result. Ravensfire (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

bloodofox Scrolling through this exchange gave me chills. I'm very thankful that I didn't venture onto this page during the actual election. Tell me, was WikiLeaks or her Clinton Foundation criminal investigation ever mentioned in this article? It's frightening looking at the edit history. Recently, one user added context to the reaction to her repeated lies, correctly stating that they led to "questions regarding her honesty and trustworthiness." It was almost immediately reverted to the highly sanitized version, "used by her opponents to question her honesty." As if only those meanie Republicans would stoop so low to attack the rightful heir to the Obama throne using her own lies against her. I really value Wikipedia, but mainly use it for scientific articles, history, and other immediately verifiable facts. I had no idea there was a seedy underbelly of activist editors who are working around the clock ready to scrub anything that fits WP:JDLI from the pages of politicians and their related scandals. Countless WP:RS refer to Hillary's email scandal as "the biggest political scandal since Watergate," and yet, its page refers to the scandal as the infinitely softer and non-triggering term of "controversy." I've about given up. The emotion/opinion motivated contributors far outnumber the contributors striving for neutrality, so it looks like I will just recommend that people avoid Wikipedia for seeking any information regarding American politics. It's such a shame. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please stop using hysterical hyperbolic rhetoric since it's not conducive to a rational discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL WP:AGF. "Hysterical"? Is that supposed to be some kind of sick kind of gender-specific personal attack? That is just shameful. If you reread my edit, you will see that I am perfectly calm, although extremely disappointed that such an obvious WP:NPOV article has laughably achieved "Featured" status. The rhetoric used in this article to cover for Hillary is just disgraceful. Thank you for putting in your two cents, though @Volunteer Marek. Hidden Tempo (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please cut it out, HT. That's a diatribe, not an attempt at rational discussion, much less an effort to edit the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

victory in popular vote

It should be mentioned more explicitly with a dedicated headline that Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote. This is huge and historic and must not be forgotten. (Misrepresentations of popular majority and presidents only happened 5 times in USA history so far).David P Minde (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yet another thread on this? Yes, if after all the votes are counted that turns out to be true, then that is worth a 5-10 word mention in the section that analyzes the election. We are not there yet. And as I have said above, the notability of people who did not win presidential elections is not not really a matter of how and why they did not lose the election, but the fact that they lost. - Wikidemon (talk)

That's sort of like saying that we can't say she "lost" the election until the electoral college actually votes. And of course it matters HOW she lost! Winning the popular vote and losing the election is a big deal, come on, you're not gonna sit there and pretend otherwise! Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Enough already. The candidate you've been supporting by way of ridiculously POV and ideological edits for months flatly lost the election. Knock it off with the absurd puffery. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek. There's no reason to wait for the complete results, just as there is no reason to wait for the EC to formally push Trump over 270. I could go along with a compromise that says that she is "projected to win the popular vote" or "will very likely win the popular vote" to reflect the language that reliable sources are using. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, her winning the popular vote is obviously going to be mentioned both in the lead and in the body, at least once the results are final/official (but I don't object to include it now per other editors' rationales above). She appears to be winning with a huge margin, much bigger than Al Gore won the popular vote with, which was also a huge issue back in 2000. In any other country the person winning the most votes would be considered to have legitimately won the election, and the debate about the bizarre US election system has already started. Her winning the popular vote is already a huge issue extensively covered in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Elections aren't decided in the United States by the popular vote. When this happened with Gore v. Bush, the same questions were asked then and absolutely nothing came of it. This sort of dialogue is pretty pointless until anyone makes a serious attempt at changing the system. This has yet to happen—even after eight years of Bush. And here we are with Trump. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody's saying that they are. Nobody's proposing that the article says they are. And Al Gore's article does in fact mention he won the popular vote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry. This just makes the Democrats sound like sore losers. She lost. End of story.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please focus on content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Phrase it as Clinton lost the 2016 election although she did win the popular vote. Putting it as "Despite winning the popular vote ..." is a fairly strong POV push. Ravensfire (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be phrased neutrally, as in: she received the most votes, but fewer delegates to the electoral college than her opponent. --Tataral (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, winning the popular vote is irrelevant to the election. As you pointed out, the United States uses the Electoral College to decide the presidential election. That's the only "winning" in US presidential elections. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant to the election. It is a very notable fact about the election. And really, what your opinion about it, or mine, doesn't matter - what matters is what reliable sources say. And these all emphasize the fact. Also, can you please stop attacking and insulting other editors?

@Ravensfire, yeah you can remove the "despite" and phrase it differently if you think that's a neutrality problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

While you may wish otherwise given your chosen candidate—and you've certainly worked overtime for the past few months to make the site as pro-Clinton as possible—the US simply doesn't use direct democracy to decide the presidential election, it uses indirect democracy: the Electoral College. The popular vote is irrelevant. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring your personal attack, again, nobody is saying that US election is decided by popular vote. That's a classic straw man. What people are saying is that the popular vote should be mentioned because virtually all reliable sources reporting on the election are talking about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

However this is phrased, it should be consistent across all articles describing this scenario. bd2412 T 15:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In modern times (post WW2) there's only two cases, Clinton 2016 and Gore 2000.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why "modern times" distinguishes this from any other period during which the electoral college has operated. bd2412 T 16:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, because some relevant laws were changed in the meantime. There are four cases of this happening overall, 2016, 2000, 1888 and 1876. The law was changed in 1876 and then a related law was changed in 1911. But roughly I agree with you that this should be treated consistently, but with the 2000 election being the most relevant precedent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

There was also the United States presidential election, 1824, where Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but there was no electoral college majority, and John Quincy Adams was selected by Congress. This is mentioned in the lede in Andrew Jackson. What law was changed in 1876 and 1911? The electoral college is set forth in the Constitution, and not in statute law. bd2412 T 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the references are to the 1876 (or was it 1877) legislation that set up the Electoral Commission to adjudicate contested returns and some of the principles were written into longterm legislation a decade later (including how to challenge). 1911 is probably to the apportionment act that capped the House size at 435 members; long term this has increased the weighting of the smallest states whereas on the older formulas Gore would have carried a larger Electoral College (as might Clinton). Timrollpickering 14:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This is what the Al Gore lede says by the way: "In the 2000 presidential election, in what was one of the closest presidential races in history, Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College to Republican George W. Bush". I think the Clinton lede should say, "In the 2016 presidential election, Clinton won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College to Republican Donald J. Trump." Nothing controversial about that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it may well be time to change that as well. The simple fact is that the popular vote has no influence on winning the presidency. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bloodofox that it is irrelevant. Also, which RS would be cite? I think it would be POV to cite RS which endorsed HRC for POTUS.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

" I think it would be POV to cite RS which endorsed HRC for POTUS" - no, that's not how WP:RS works and it's sort of a ridiculous idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a major problem we had in editing Wikipedia throughout the campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? As with Gore winning the popular note, Clinton winning the popular vote is getting extensive mention in news coverage about the election results. Not because anyone thinks that she or Gore won the presidency because of it, but because it's a very notable fact about the race. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it's a notable fact about the race, but it's not THE notable fact about the race. The ultimate result should be first, then the notable oddity. Switching it around and putting that oddity first seems like Wikipedia is trying to excuse the result of the election. Yes, the popular result is notable but the overall most notable point about the election is that Clinton lost. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with switching it around. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevance in US Presidential Election

Placing this next to the actual election results reads as if it is some kind of apologetic concession rather than straightforward reporting. These campaigns were geared to win electoral votes, not the popular vote. Both know how the American presidential election works. Clinton's 0.2% ([10]) popular vote edge is also incredibly small to the point of irrelevance. Placing losing a presidential election next to pointlessly "winning" the popular vote looks like yet another attempt at presenting Clinton in the most flattering light possible on the site, something a few users here in particular have been doing for months. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion, and mine, about the election, doesn't really matter. All that matters is what sources say. And as shown above, a wide range of sources emphasizes the fact that she won the popular vote and lost the election. Because, no shit, that's notable. Frankly, trying to exclude that fact from the lede or the article is sort of ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Clinton won more votes. It is a measure of how close the race was. Similarly if she had received only 35% of the vote and lost in a landslide, we would mention that too. TFD (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think 0.2% is absolutely negligible.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That's great. Reliable sources think otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's no consensus. I suppose you could start an RfC?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Gawd, not another stalling tactic. There's a ton of sources. It's neutral. Stop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, many editors disagree with you. There's no consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really. And trying to prevent consensus when there's a ton of sources to support something is actually WP:GAMEing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

{actually I guess this would be more of Abuse of process. Regardless, it's disruptive)Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Who are these "many editors"? As far as I can tell, only you (Zigzig20s) and bloodofox are opposed to this. clpo13_(talk) 16:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been doing this throughout the campaign. We couldn't add anything remotely negative despite countless RS, for example we had to do an RfC to add the Goldman Sachs speeches. Why is this suddenly no longer the policy we should follow?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on policy-based arguments, and reliable sources, there is clearly consensus to include the fact that she won the popular vote (in the same way this is included in the Gore article and has always been). A user's personal views are not relevant; some of us write an international encyclopedia based on coverage in reliable sources from across the globe and are not part of any domestic political campaigns, you know. If the world press reported something similar about a presidential election in Equatorial Guinea, we would certainly include it in the biography of the candidate who received the most votes. --Tataral (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The Goldman Sachs speeches were probably covered in the international press too?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't participate in any debates about speeches, so I know nothing about that, and anyway, a few speeches seem trivial compared to the result of the presidential election, and the way this is phrased here, it looks to me as if you are talking about an unsuccessful attempt that was rejected in an RfC or something to use those speeches to smear the article subject in the past. --Tataral (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the RfC led to consensus for inclusion.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

So what are you complaining about, then? --Tataral (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

We should follow the same rules when there is no consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Of course this must be included as something highly important not only for this election, but for the US political system in general. This is everywhere (just a random source), and this is the reason why the electoral system in US is considered non-democratic in many countries and by many people in US, ironically including even Donald Trump. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Of course it will be mentioned in the article that she won the popular vote but lost the election. There is clear consensus here to include this highly relevant and universally reported fact, and it should be added if it is not already there (I'm traveling and my computer access is limited).. I believe this was the fifth time in U.S. history this happened, and that should be noted also. MelanieN alt (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI I rephrased the "lost/won" sentence at the end of the lead to hopefully make it clearer for international readers. It now reads: On November 8, 2016, Clinton lost the election to Republican rival Donald Trump, failing to obtain a majority in the electoral college despite scoring a higher count of the popular vote nationally. — JFG ^talk 05:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

But sources don't use that language. They say she won the popular vote. We need to reflect that language per npov. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Fine. Back to despite winning the national count of popular vote. — JFG ^talk 08:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• We could also note that 44% of 231m eligible voters "voted" none of the above, 26% voted HRC, 26% DT, and 4% other. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Was this an attempt at humor? On the off chance that this was a serious attempt to make a point, it could be noted - but isn't, anywhere - what percent of eligible voters actually voted in a given election. If 56% of eligible voters cast a vote in this election, that's about par for the course for the last few decades. MelanieN alt (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

KilroyWasHere42 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Information is not true needs fixed

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I think we should adjust the opening paragraph to more accurately reflect Clinton's notability. (I would make the edit myself, but I want to run it by other users regarding what exactly should be included.)

Current: Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (/ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician who was the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001, the 67th United States Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, and was the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2016 election.

Proposed: Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (/ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician who was the 67th United States Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, U.S. Senator from New York from 2001 to 2009, and First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001. She was the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2016 election, becoming the first woman to be nominated for president by a major U.S. political party.

Reasoning: Clinton's most notable position should be listed first. (WP:MOSBIO). Arguably, her position as First Lady is subsequent to both her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State as well as U.S. Senator. Additionally, is it not exceptionally notable that she was the first female nominee of a major party? I know this information is deeper into the lead, but it seems awfully pertinent to her biography. For reference, Barack Obama's position as the first African American president is in the second sentence. Thanks. GEORGIAN^{Go Dogs} 06:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent reasoning and well written. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I was thinking that First Lady may be more significant than Senator, but that would put the events out of (reverse) chronological order. bd2412 T 13:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. The part mentioning her as "becoming the first woman to be nominated for president by a major U.S. political party", is already mentioned lower in the lead. Not sure more information on a failed run should be in first sentence, Obama's was notable since he won. As noted, even with Obama it was in the second sentence. Otherwise looks fine. PackMecEng (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done The first sentence has been revised given each of us agreed to at least make changes there. I think we should reach greater consensus before further edits are made incorporating her status as the first female nominee, etc. PackMecEng, my concern is that there is an inconsistency between this article on Clinton and that of Geraldine Ferraro, whose position on the national ticket is prominent in that article's lead (and I would argue appropriately so given it is a distinguishable and notable characteristic). The ultimate outcome of Clinton's candidacy is independent from her nomination. And re: your concern about the inclusion being in the first sentence, it is actually in the second sentence of the proposed edit. I maintain the inclusion is worthy of the opening paragraph. GEORGIAN^{Go Dogs} 21:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Good call I must of missed that you were purposing second sentence. My mistake on that one. On Ferraro, it's a hard to say since she has fewer notable achievements than Clinton. Looking at List of elected and appointed female heads of state (closest parallel I could find) most I looked through were second to fourth sentence, so seems like moving to from fifth paragraph to first is reasonable, especially with how overly long Clinton's lead is. Perhaps some more input from others to see what they think. PackMecEng (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm still 100% behind the language offered by Georgian, exactly as proposed. We strive to make the best article we can. Consistency with other articles, while ideal, isn't our number one goal. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary recentism in lead

The dates 28 July 2016 and 8 November 2016 are written out in full when there is no real need to do so. None of the (very many) other dates in the lead are given in such detail. It is done, I presume, because the article is being updated in real time. No reasonable writer in ten years time (WP:10YT) would be so inconsistent. Perhaps they should be changed? It is already completely clear the events took place in 2016. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:A95A:148C:D5DB:FAD3 (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability of negative nicknames

Several current sources highlight things like "Shillary". I had cited them at Talk:Shillary but it was deleted so I'll need to rewrite them unless an admin with access could reproduce the citations here. How much coverage in the media would be needed to validate listing it in something similar to the other_names= field which template:infobox person has? Under template:infobox officer holder I think that is nickname=. I figure negative nicknames are more controversial to add and would have more concern over being properly sourced than positive ones. Ranze (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I have an old draft at User:BD2412/Name usage by or about Hillary Clinton; you are welcome to add information there, although it is questionable whether there will ever be a consensus to return this information to mainspace. bd2412 T 19:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

We are not having nicknames in this article. They are BLP violations and/or disrespectful and trivial. There's no way any of them are notable enough for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. This is a BLP. To list negative nicknames here, or to create an article about them, or to use them as redirects, would totally violate Wikipedia's BLP policies. There has been a lot of name calling in this election, aimed at politicians on both sides, but none of it should be in Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

BLP would require that reliable sources show notability; if those hurdles are met, we can include negative information. bd2412 T 21:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah. But good luck finding a single reliable source for "Shillary", let alone a preponderance of such. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A list of negative nicknames would be nothing more than an WP:ATTACKPAGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. However, a list of all nicknames, positive and negative, with an explanation of context, would not. bd2412 T 22:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

October 23 deletion [of Shillary]

This message recovered from talk:Shillary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

@RHaworth: I don't know if any reliable sources existed at the time, but presently it seems some news articles released after that deletion might justify this as being plausible. I am wondering if these sources would lead you to reconsider the deletion:

Brinlee, Morgan (30 October 2016). ""Is Hillary Clinton A Demon" Is A Poll Question Voters Have Actually Been Asked". Bustle (magazine). Over the course of the last 18 months Hillary Clinton has been called a lot of things — crooked, Shillary, Killary, nasty woman, and yes, even the devil.

Waletzko, Anna (8 November 2016). "Hillary Deserved Better. We All Deserved Better". Huffington Post. She's been called "Shillary," "bitch," and countless other names, yet still, she perseveres.

Warnica, Richard (9 November 2016). "Why Donald Trump won: In the end, unlike Hillary Clinton, his base showed up — and showed up in force". National Post. For Election Day, Mark Craig, founder of "Flint 4 Bernie (Sanders)," had 200 barf bags printed out with the slogan "I voted 2016." For months, the former autoworker and Flint, Mich., native had vowed he would never vote for Hillary Clinton. In emails and conversations he calls her "Shillary" or "Billary," or sometimes just "The Witch."

Obviously The Witch is too broad, but I don't know of anyone else nicknamed Billary or Killary or Shillary.

Do you think additional sources would be required? — Ranze (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• It may sound simplistic but I think that if you have a redirect, the word or phrase in the redirect should appear in the target of that redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is this still being discussed? Wikipedia is not going down the route of having articles or redirects of pejorative nicknames. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

How about Turd Blossom? Also, Tricky Dick redirects to Richard Nixon, and Slick Willie is a disambiguation page listing multiple targets, including Bill Clinton. bd2412 T 14:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:INN for the spirit of the issue. The existence of anything (which itself possibly should or should not exist, for reasons that may or may not be related to why this should or should not exist) is always irrelevant. Argue this issue on this issue's merits. The fact that a) another redirect exists for reasons which may be not valid for this argument or b) another redirect exists but probably shouldn't are NEITHER valid arguments for keeping BLP violations at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 14:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My personal feeling is that Turd Blossom shouldn't have its own article. Tricky Dick probably should, because it was used almost universally after a newspaper called Nixon that way back in 1950. Slick Willie should not point to Bill Clinton on the dab page. But in any case, the existence of these bears no relation to the creation of these new ones, particularly as they have almost zero support in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Still no. We do have a redirect for The Donald, which is a neutral nickname and widely used. But we don't, and shouldn't, have anything at Wikipedia about all the derogatory names that were thrown around in this election. No Lyin' Ted, no Crooked Hillary, no Shillary or Killary. Not only because they are derogatory, but because they never came into general use and recognition. Unlike, say, Tricky Dick. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, there is a mention of "Slick Willie" in the Bill Clinton article and it was fairly widely used, admittedly mostly by opponents, but it's a term that one could reasonably expect someone to use to search. Ravensfire (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

In order to have an encyclopedia article, as opposed to a dictionary entry, we reliable sources that discuss the term. It must tell us who uses the term, what it means, how widely it is used, whether it is positive or pejorative, how Clinton supporters have responded etc. There are few if any nicknames that warrant their own articles. If they are particularly significant, they may warrant a mention in the subject's article. TFD (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is the Witch too broad? Donald Trump is referred to as the Donald and worse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.241.122 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN alt: "they never came into general use and recognition" can we say that for sure? I showed sources above reporting on this. I've seen massive use of this on forums and stuff, obviously we're not going to see high-class reporters engaged in this namecalling themselves. I think we may be viewing this through the lens of eras we hold different levels of familiarity with. I actually didn't recall an association of Nixon with "Tricky Dick" but heard "Shillary" frequently during this election. Even with Nixon being brought up in relation to the 2016 election (something about him saying Trump was electable) that Tricky Dick phrase didn't come up. If the adjective "general" is too big, then what word would you use to describe the amount of use and recognition reflected in the Brinlee/Waletzko/Warnica examples above? I could look for more if there's a number you want to see hit before acknowledging this reflects general usage.

Given her template has a nickname= field we should consider other nicknames which have been reported on by reliable sources and including them. For example:

• special:diff/750788243 I had added a Business Insider source for "HRC" which was obviously neutral
• http://fortune.com/2016/04/18/trump-clinton-nickname/ for "Crooked Hillary"
• http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/magazine/the-nickname-hillary-clinton-has-been-waiting-for.html?_r=0 for "Nasty Woman"
• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trumps-new-nickname-for-hillary-clinton-puzzles-germans/ for "America's Angela Merkel"
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/jun/23/hillary-clinton-michelle-obama-hildebeest-barack-bill alleges the Edward Klein book "Blood Feud" includes a claim that Michelle Obama called her "Hildebeest". A cursory search at https://books.google.ca/books?id=LOCsCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA277 confirms the book says this of her and Valerie Jarrett.

The thing about nicknames is, I don't think we need to be concerned about negativity because it's not that we are saying anything negative about the person, just that we are reporting that others have called them negative things often enough for it to be notable. If we do include them in the template, they appear at the bottom of it, so it's not particularly distracting.

It shouldn't be done without references, but in cases like the above where they've been located and established unique and identifiable nicknames, why not use them? Ranze (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. The nickname parameter in the infobox is not for pejorative slurs, and creating redirects from such terms is a very silly idea. - MrX 03:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, pejorative slurs can be a form of nickname. This is consistent with Nickname#Physical characteristics which mentions "Complexion: "Pinky" for a person with Rosacea, "Zit" or "pizza-face" for severe acne, various racial slurs for skin color." and Nickname#See also which links to List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity. Nicknames can be both complimentary or critical. Since they are merely nicknames, they don't even have to be accurate in describing the person. Us reporting, for example, on the "Crooked Hillary" nickname, would not actually be saying Hillary is crooked, just that it is a repeated phrase unique to her which has received extensive coverage. Ranze (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no. We're not going to put "Lying Donald" under Donald Trump's nicknames, either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Certainly we have to be clear whether or not nicknames are negative and should say if they are. Otherwise in five years time some high school student who had never heard of Clinton and was doing a school project would write a letter to her addressed "Dear Crooked Hillary." TFD (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I assume this is a joke right? :) Anybody who doesn't understand "crooked" to be inherently pejorative should probably be reading Simple Wikipedia. If there were a need to explain pejorative nicknames, I would think it would be to explain when normally pejorative names aren't used that way (like Weird Al) I don't think we necessarily need disclaimers for obvious things like that. Our job should simply be to report notable nicknames, not to engage in original research interpreting them for others. If we were to explain a nickname's meaning, that should be done in the article body and supported with reliable sources. The template isn't the place for explanations, just basic information. It could also lead to a lot of troublesome gray areas too. For example is "Slick" for Bill complimentary or critical? I could see it being used either way depending on context. The "Nasty" phrase similarly, while initially used in a negative context by Trump, got re-appropriated in a positive manner as we can see at http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004727041/elizabeth-warren-nasty-women-vote.html so it's similarly not a yes/no issue. Reporting that a nickname is notable is enough, going into explanations about their meanings seems out of scope. If giving people access to sources discussing that is desired, they can be listed as references in the nickname field without having to duplicate the explanations in the article. Ranze (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Frigidaire

Been doing some digging to find any notable aliases that may have existed earlier in life prior to all the election name-calling. This term keeps coming up in various incarnations, alternatively pre-empted by "Miss" or "Sister". I'm not going to add it until I'm sure an actual reliable source confirms it though. Supposedly this was something Katie Couric asked her about in an interview. I couldn't find it in this transcript but that was from October 2009, reports were from February 2008 so I wondered if Couric had interviewed her prior to this. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-run-for-the-white-house/ confirms it happened February 8th. I don't know if http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-kaus/sister-frigidaire-tries-t_b_86168.html at Huffington Post would work as a source for dialogue that occurred during it. One one hand, it says 'blog', but on the other hand its author Stephen Kaus is notable. It includes this supposed excerpt from the interview:

COURIC: Someone told me your nickname in school was Miss Frigidaire. Is that true?”

CLINTON: Only with some boys,” Clinton said, laughing.

COURIC: I don’t know if I want to hear the back story on that!

CLINTON: Well, you wouldn’t want to know the boys either.

Kaus then claims: (Apparently, the real story, as reported by Carl Bernstein, is that Hillary’s high school yearbook predicted she would become a nun, and would be known as Sister Frigidaire.)

I am not sure where Kaus got that though, right now I'm looking to see if I can find any report like that from Carl Bernstein. If he had said that, it would have had to have come out prior to February 12th when Kaus posted this.

The claim isn't isolated. Also Feb 12 at Columbia Journalism Review a Liz Barrett posted http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/whos_afraid_of_60_mintues.php supporting the question being asked, although does not include the answer. Feb 11 Brent Baker of Newsbusters had the same excerpt as Kaus: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brent-baker/2008/02/11/couric-injects-silly-girl-talk-60-minutes-interview-clinton

If the 60min question/answer can be confirmed, since it's high school I'm proposing it as potential for the 'early life' section. This would only be for "Miss" though, because separate confirmation would be needed for "Sister" if Kaus was correct about Bernstein introducing the alternate title. If Couric did ask this, it makes me wonder where she got the information in the first place. Ranze (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I definitely do not believe this is notable. You want to add "Frigidaire" as an alias because some boys called Hillary cold when she was in high school? Wikipedia should be a source for reputable facts, not high school drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelangelo1992 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It's time for Ranze to end this ludicrous obsession with nicknames and go off to do something actually productive. Multiple articles have now been infected with this crap. Enough. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a complete waste of time and effort. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Michelangelo1992: no, not because of that, but because Katie Couric asked about it on a high-profile news show and Hillary Clinton affirmed it herself. This makes it a reputable fact. If it was merely conjecture by someone who went to the same high school it would not be verifiable and I would not have brought it up.

@Scjessey: this is reliably sourced information I'm bringing up here, not "crap". I don't think it is appropriate to insult other editors and claim they are obsessed simply because they are exploring an area. I believe it is a good use of time to bring things like this up, not a waste. Ranze (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It only becomes relevant if it is noted in news articles. Blogs and interviews are only reliable sources for what was said, so we can not even say that the nicknames were ever used. I suggest that you stop "digging." Clinton is a well-known person and there is no reason to say anything about her that has not received extensive coverage. TFD (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ranze: (edit conflict) If everything that was reliably sourced was added to Wikipedia, it would be a mess. We'd probably have to rename it Kardashiapedia. Or Bieberpedia. The news media covers everything it can, but Wikipeida is not a news site. We try to capture the most significant details only, and some boys being mean to a young Hillary Rodham is far from that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ranze I totally get where you're coming from on this, but I promise you that you will never see "Frigidaire" on this page longer than the 3 and a half minutes (max) that it takes somebody refreshing their watchlist every second of every day to notice what you've done, and immediately revert it. You have to pick your battles, and this one is like trying to get a stain out of the carpet when the house is burning down. Take a quick scan of the page. See anything that could be interpreted to reflect poorly on the Secretary in any way? Me either. Nothing about her staggering remarks to Wall Street juggernaut banks, admitting she doesn't tell the truth to America. Nothing about her highly visible and ongoing health problems. The Clinton Foundation section makes no mention of the continuing criminal FBI public corruption investigation, and the section doesn't even bother to provide the link to the Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy page. Nothing about Chelsea Clinton using Foundation funds to pay for her wedding [11], and nothing about Qatar forking over a cool $1 million to have a little facetime with Bill Clinton while Hillary was Secretary of State. In the current version, an uninformed reader might actually think the Foundation is on the straight and narrow!

You see what I'm getting at? I'm all for improving the article, but this one is a lost cause. If that wasn't enough to convince you, check out the completely blank header of the article, and the glaring absence of the

tag. The final insult is that this is a featured article(!) I think your energy may be much better spent campaigning for an RfC for the most fundamental, egregious omissions (the aforementioned issues, for instance) rather than trying to include a very small piece of information backed by only a single RS. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)