Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

First Lady-Senator overlap

I do not believe this is mentioned, and I feel it would be worth mentioning. Due to the fact that both houses of congress are sworn-in ahead of the President and Vice President's inauguration, Mrs. Clinton's tenures as First Lady and United States Senator overlapped with one another for more than sixteen days. In other words, she held both titles simultaneously for a period longer than two-weeks. I believe the only means one has of finding this out when reading the article is currently to do the math themselves if they have a keen enough eye. Appears noteworthy enough to warrant a one-sentence mention. SecretName101 (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Find a RS which discusses it and then you can do it. Otherwise it's OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

2016 presidential campaign

We're obligated to tell the truth also when it's not in obvious favor of the person which the article deals with. We are not meant to write tilting biographies, and in the case of Hillary is the presidential campaign included. To compare Putin with Hitler, like she did in March 2016, is included in this. How a US President Candidate talks about other leaders of other large countries, isn't UNDUE for the presidential campaign part of this article. And it was at the very least noted by the UK news agency Reuters. Boeing720 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your paragraph seems to twist the meaning of what she said, hence WP:OR. Plus, one speech out of how ever many she gave during the campaign which received little coverage doesn't deserve its own paragraph on this page, per WP:UNDUE. Also, I didn't notice this until after I reverted your edit, the grammar was poor. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Not only that, but it was in March 2014, so it wasn't even during the campaign. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
UNDUE ? OR !? Taken from Reuters, UK - [1], ABC - [2] unknown source [3] etc. Also during the last TV-debate with Trump, the second question was for Trump only (about the Mexico border, I think), Clinton now got some free time, and used it in order to make other allegation about Putin himself, yet again. I haven't invended her poor knowledge on European History. It's no OR - and most certainly not UNDUE either. (I'm not in favor of Trump) But why is she smiling on all our images ? It's a pure PRO-Hillary article ! Boeing720 (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Lot's of people drew a parallel between the annexation by Putin of Crimea and the earlier annexation of the Sudetenland by Hitler. It's not major. TFD (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking of adding a section in the article about Hillary Clinton's relationship with Huma Abedin

I think it would be a good thing to add to the article given the history there. I will source the section correctly of course within the standards set forth by wikipedia, but there is some information on the subject now coming to light — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.249.19 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably a bad idea, since there are no sections about her relationships with other people. Her relationship with Bill Clinton for example has received more attention and we don't have a section about it. TFD (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Please don't. She has had many notable relationships with notable people and we cannot include them in her already quite detailed and lengthy bio, correctly so. This is an article about HRC's whole life and career - who and what has had an impact on her life - a section on her relationship with Huma Abedin would have undue weight in the balance of this article. Thank you for the suggestion, but this won't fly. Tvoz/talk 02:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hillary Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

Okay I've read the FAQ but it really sounds to me like reasoning created after the fact to justify the current image. Consensus can be decided on each individual article on how best to portray the subject and I don't see how this case is any different. (see also WP:CCC, WP:IAR) My case for changing the image is this: there are hundreds of photographs of Clinton out there. In this one she has an obvious dear-in-the-headlights look, with wide eyes and a forced smile. We can do better. Common criticism I've heard of Clinton is that she's dishonest or untrustworthy. A header image like this only reinforces that belief and makes her look fake. Thus this is also a biography of a living persons issue where the subject is being presented in an unflattering manner when clearly superior photographs exist. I won't nominate a specific one because I don't want to derail the discussion to criticisms of those, rather I'd first like to establish consensus for changing the current one. Thanks for hearing me out. 24.38.248.96 (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's her official picture from when she was Secretary of State; such images are often used when they are available. Acalamari 10:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, like I said that's a cop-out. It's just saying "because that's the way it is" instead of examining the specific circumstances or trying to do better. I just stated why the current image isn't good enough. Instead of even trying to consider those points you just slavishly appealed to the status quo. Remember, consensus can change, and rules can be ignored if they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. The context of the current photo isn't a strong enough argument to overrule any objections to its quality because its deficiencies make it inappropriate to use per BLP concerns. 24.38.248.96 (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, you will not help your argument by insulting the first editor who disagrees with you, or dismissing their comments as not legitimate. Nobody is required to see things your way, and your way is not the only legitimate way to see things. With that out of the way, here's my way of seeing things:
You have asserted things about the current image as objective fact, but fairly extensive experience with these discussions tells me such things are very subjective. For just one example, I see none of those things that you see. No amount of discussion is going to make me see the (your) light and go, "Oh! Now I see it! There it is! The deer-in-the-headlights look and the forced smile!!" For prior elaboration on this and related stuff, see this. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
One doesn't push through the quagmire of bureaucracy by being patient and demur, rather you have to be direct and assertive. I already brought up that I read the the point in the FAQ and I felt it didn't hold water, yet the entire content of their reply merely repeated what was said in the FAQ. That's definitely slavish and already threatened to derail the discussion—something I've seen happen way too much on talk pages. A discussion moderator doesn't keep things going by just sitting there, they have to direct participants and point out when they're straying. Quite frankly I'm tired of the steadfast ways of many of the editors here who will refuse to budge even an instance because they are so entrenched in their ways. Status quo warriors if you will, and I expected an especially tough time on mainstream political articles like this which are pretty much battlefields. (just look at those 46 pages of archives...)
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, thanks for linking me that discussion. While I don't agree with all of it—for example anyone with functioning eyes can see the deer in the headlights look—I do think some of it holds merit such as the fact that the discussion would shift to the negatives of the new image and that everyone will have their own subjective objections colored by their perception of the subject and how they feel others would view them. I rescind my request then since it seems like it'll be fruitless. 24.38.248.96 (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding the support of the KKK leader

Hi, I don't have a Wiki account. Can someone add that the KKK leader supported her? Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYQeQseqVXI (00:26). Thank you.

Youtube is not a reliable source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Snopes has an article debunking the story here. Buy it's such an obvious hoax, it's a wonder anyone took it seriously. TFD (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hillary Clinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

11 August infobox image change

This 11 August edit changed the infobox image from this to this.

One could argue that the 2-month time lapse shows de facto consensus. I would argue that the edit just slipped through because nobody noticed the color change. (I recall asking myself at one point whether the image always looked that bad. I decided my memory was playing tricks on me.) While display characteristics vary, I don't see how the change could be called an improvement on any display. However, after this much time I'm not going to change it back without a consensus. Pinging MelbourneStar because they attempted to do so (which edit, by the way, apparently changed a lot more than they intended due to interference by the wikipoltergeist).[4] ―Mandruss ☎ 10:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done [5] Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2017

https://hillaryclinton.com is now the website of The Office of Hillary Clinton. Tlafronz (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

That's what we have - in the infobox. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

her name

She's gone by the name "Hillary Rodham Clinton" now for a long time. Like, her book is published under that surname. Shouldn't the article be called "Hillary Rodham Clinton" instead of "Hillary Clinton", due to the fact the latter isn't her name. Its not her real name, or the name she uses in public.

I just mean, "Rodham" isn't her middle-name. It's her surname. She has a double-barreled surname. Her surname is "Rodham Clinton" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.202.245.164 (talk • contribs)

That does not appear to be true. She does not use a double surname. Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton in the same way that way Martin Luther King's name is Martin Luther King. Or better yet, the way Elizabeth Barrett Browning's last name is Browning, or Florence Foster Jenkins's last name is Jenkins. Taking the maiden name as a middle name is very common and traditional in parts of the English speaking world. She does like to use all three names, but she would be alphabetized as "Clinton, Hillary Rodham". Not as "Rodham Clinton, Hillary." Also, note how she ran for president: as "Hillary Clinton". --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
See this page's archives for epic Hillary name wars. We are enjoying the peace. Also see FAQ Q1 near the top of this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Covfefe

Per RS accounts Please do not smear HRC by falsely conveying the impression she thought this was a coded message to the Russians. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "joked" is better, but I removed the whole sentence. It was indeed a joke and has no lasting importance for her life and bio and we cannot include every comment she makes about Trump - there's a book full of them. Just because something has a source does not mean we have to include it - the bio is long and we need to pick and choose what goes in. Tvoz/talk 01:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I can't think of any reason to include this utterly insignificant event except to disparage and defame HRC. SPECIFICO talk 02:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

What is meant?

"....Rodham helped canvass Chicago's South Side at age 13 following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, where she saw evidence of electoral fraud (such as voting list entries showing addresses that were empty lots) against Republican candidate Richard Nixon. 1. Don't have access to the reference. Is that paragraph meant to say there was evidence that Nixon had carried out electoral fraud? Is that what "...evidence...against" is trying to say? Or was there fraud against Nixon. Confusing.Moriori (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have the book either, and I agree that could/should be clearer. Beyond that I can only speculate pointlessly based on the surrounding context. "Rodham was raised in a politically conservative household...". "She then volunteered to campaign for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater...". I'd put my money on "fraud against Nixon". If I'm wrong, see my first sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps "committed by" should replace the word "against". Makes more sense. Moriori (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing can be said to make sense until the source is reviewed or another one is located. The ambiguity is preferable to a false "clarification". My suggestion would be for some dedicated editor (not me) to trot down to the local library and read page 19. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to break out Cultural and political image of Hillary Clinton into a separate article

At 295k, this article is on the long side for a Wikipedia article, and will only continue to grow in the future as Clinton remains a public figure engaged in public political activism. I propose to break out the "Cultural and political image of Hillary Clinton" section into a separate article. This would be consistent with other public figures of comparable stature (see, e.g., Cultural and political image of John McCain, Public image of Mike Huckabee, Public image of Mitt Romney, Public image of Rudy Giuliani, Public image of Sarah Palin). There is also, of course, an existing Public image of Bill Clinton article. I have made a draft User:BD2412/Cultural and political image of Hillary Clinton, s-merging in some other relevant material. Please feel free to tweak the draft. bd2412 T 19:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

As a counter-proposal, I think the article should be instead be drastically edited. This proposal has come up many times before on a regular basis without getting any traction. Her importance is vastly exaggerated by left-wingers. I could reduce the size of the article by 1/3 and still maintain all important information.104.169.28.113 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That has been proposed before and failed, for good reason. This article is comparable in coverage to other figures who have held comparable offices (First Ladies, Senators from New York, Secretaries of State, major party presidential nominees). However, you are welcome to start a new thread proposing specific sections or points of information to be removed. bd2412 T 02:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done, as there has been no objection. bd2412 T 21:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Having done that, I assume you are now going to trim out most of the duplicative material currently in this article and reduce it to a summary - as per WP:SPINOFF? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Planning on it. However, I was going to wait a few days to make sure that no new objections are raised after the fact. bd2412 T 21:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

I noticed in the lead section of the Trump article we say that he has made numerous controversial or false statements. We also mention protests surrounding his election and policies while introducing the alleged collusion between Trump and Russia. So I ask, in this article, why is it that we fail to say anything about Clinton's email scandal? We don't mention the act of sending and receiving classified information on insecure servers, deleting 33,000 subpoenaed emails, or false statements made to investigators. Nor do we mention the revelation from Donna Brazile that she basically rigged the primary. It seems a little biased. I'd add something myself but I know I'd get reverted. Display name 99 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Tons of controversial stuff is omitted from Donald Trump's lead. Just one example is the open RfC, Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead, in which the omits currently have a significant lead. This is the problem with comparing articles in this way: there is no end to it. There is nothing in WP:NPOV to the effect of "articles about similar or equivalent subjects should be consistent in their assessments of neutrality", and that's by design. If you want to make a case for addition of certain material to this article's lead per WP:DUE or other policy (as seen in that RfC), feel free to do so, but comparison to the Trump article is not a legitimate argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
You say "there is no end to it," but there's a clear end. We had two main opposing candidates in the 2016 election. Both were beset with numerous allegations of bad behavior. One article, we mention and even support (the false statements part) many of the allegations. In another, we don't mention them all. It's that simple. To me, that shows clear bias, and it can end when we modify the lead of the Clinton article to mention her scandals. Pointing out the difference is a legitimate argument. In Clinton's case, I think it shows undue weight. Display name 99 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
There may be a clear end for you, but you are not the only Wikipedia editor. Other editors would say that Clinton's lead should be compared to Trump's lead in other ways, and others would say that it should be compared to other leads. Yet other editors might say that Trump's lead should be compared to Obama's or Bill Clinton's lead, resulting in the removal of "controversial or false statements" from Trump's lead, thereby negating your argument here and requiring the removal of the content added here on the basis of that content in Trump's lead. Obama's and Bill Clinton's articles would in turn have their own two-way connections, including Obama<>Bush43 and Clinton<>Bush41, and so on, and we would end up with a huge tangle of linkages with completely unmanageable ripple effects. There is simply no objective way to say what content should be compared to what articles, and this simply. cannot. work. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Mandruss. Also, as has been said many many times before, this is an encyclopedia article about the subject's entire life, not just 2 years of her life, albeit an important 2 years. She has had a long and varied career, and we cover it all and summarize in the lead - there are sections in the article and sub articles that focus on particular parts of her life. What is done on another article is quite irrelevant. Tvoz/talk 04:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Email controversy

I noticed in the section about her emails, that it never mentone that she deleted supoeana emails. It never talks about how she turned over several devices without sim cards, at least one hard drive had been smashed with what appeared to be a hammer, and that she used "bleach bit" and "acid wash" to erase information that was supposed to be turned over to the FBI. I'm sure this isn't the long standing liberal bias of the editors here *sarcasm* but I'm wondering why this was left out. Thank you in advance for your responses. Lktwnr08 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lktwnr08: Because this article is about all of Hillary's life, and the email controversy is sufficiently summarized with the bulk of the info at Hillary Clinton email controversy, BleachBit#Controversies, and other articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

So, out of 7 lengthy paragraphs and a quote, the sentence that she deleted the emails and tried to obstruct the investigation was deemed unnecessary? OK, got it! No bias there Ha. Lktwnr08 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be included if she had deleted emails or tried to obstruct the investigation. We stick with facts here. Fake news is surely free to be added at Conservapedia. Cheers. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Undiscussed image change

I have reverted an undiscussed change to the lede image by User:Richelieu94. The image they inserted is clearly of lower quality (being cropped from TV coverage) as well as being under unflattering conditions. We should no more use it than we would use one of the many available photos of Donald Trump with his hair in... strange configurations. It's just not appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention that we use generally use the most recent official portrait for politicians. And former politicians, if one considers her that. A look at similar cases suggests that this image is here to stay unless she runs for something again and wins. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

2016 election statistic

Changed heading from "Meaningless fact" per WP:TALKNEW bullet 4. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The statement "With more than 65 million votes won, Clinton won the third highest number of votes in any U.S. presidential election in history, behind President Obama's victories in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections" should be deleted. With US population increase, the voting base obviously increases with each election. Do you expect Millard Fillmore to have gotten 65 million votes? Then stating "in history" is meaningless when all of US history had a lower population. George Washington got 100% of the popular vote but there were only 4 million people in the country. The statement is meaningless. Perhaps a percent of the vote, if it were high, would be meaningful. Why not mention Trump's 62 million? It's rendered even more meaningless by the fact that popular vote has nothing to do with the election process. It's actually sort of pathetic to make this statement and it has "sore loser" written all over it....DigbyDalton (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC).

If you can show that the US had a significantly different population in 2016 than it did in 2012, that might well be a valid point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Who said anything about 2012? I'm talking about "history," which means all US elections back to the first one....Find the error in this statement: "Cars were safer in 1908 because there were only 200 automobile deaths that year."....DigbyDalton (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, since it obviously escaped you: By comparing Hillary's vote count directly to the vote count in 2012 as the text you quoted does, that gives the statement the meaning you claim is lacking. Your argument only applies to elections which occurred long enough ago that there was a significant difference in voter numbers between then and the 2016 election. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It obviously escapes you that the text is not only comparing her vote count to 2012, it is comparing the vote count to every election in US history. As if Hillary's vote count was a landslide victory, greatest ever, when in fact, her high vote was entirely due to current US population being the greatest ever. (Personal attack removed) DigbyDalton (talk) 11:17 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Sigh... No, it doesn't. But in case you didn't notice, that's a fucking meaningless point if part of that comparison includes a time which had a similar population to 2016. Your argument is like if I pointed out that someone had the biggest ears in the world, and you responded by complaining that some of the people alive today are children, so it's unfair to compare them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This is also the highest number of votes ever received by a white candidate, which is also something significant. bd2412 T 00:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
One needs to show that the observation is significant by referring to secondary sources that say it is. It's just spin to imply that someone who failed to get a majority of the vote was the third most successful candidate of all time. (And the words "in history" are redundant and better suited to hagiography.) We could just as well say that Trump received more votes than any other head of state in the world, which is true but misleading. TFD (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point, but see [6], [7], [8], [9] & [10]. It's been commented on by plenty of sources, specifically in the context of history. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I've lost patience arguing this foolish point. It's been 24 hours so I'm removing it again. DigbyDalton (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Do not pursue an edit war. Please continue the discussion or drop the matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
For additional clarity: The removal was challenged by reversion. Per ArbCom restrictions stated at the top of the page, (1) the removal may not be re-instated without talk page consensus, and (2) anyone who does so risks a discretionary sanction (aka "shoot on sight"). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I see a limitation to "one revert in 24 hours" - the reversion was, indeed, one revert. bd2412 T 21:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Mandruss is referring to the "Consensus required" clause, not the 1RR restriction. See the DS notice at the top. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

A few comments. 1) This was added only a few weeks ago, so it is not longstanding. It was challenged by reversion and the default is to keep it out until consensus is reached to retain it. 2) If we keep this, IMO it belongs in the article text rather than the lede. It is kind of a minor point, and is currently not mentioned in the text, so it should not be in the lede. 3) Personally I would be OK with adding it to the article in the "2016 presidential campaign" section. Maybe without the words "in history" which seem kind of puffery-ish. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

All of the sources specify "in history" or an equivalent phrase. I hadn't noticed it wasn't in the body, but I think it belongs in both place. The assertion that this is "meaningless" is completely vacuous. This is one of the most widely reported aspects of the end result out there. The sources I gave above were literally the first five results of a google news search with tens of thousands of hits. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Add media to "Traditional duties" sub-section

Since it mentions her work chairing the Save America's Treasures, we could incorporate an image from Commons:Category:The First Lady's Treasures Tour (which features images from her travel to various locations included in the initiative) to the "Traditional duties" subsection. But doubtful, as only (maybe) one or two of the images would be suitable for the article (many are small) SecretName101 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Kathy Shelton content under Marriage, family, law career and First Lady of Arkansas

Isn't it excessive to dedicate an entire paragraph to what is just one of the many legal cases she handled in her career? Perhaps we would be better of reducing it to a sentence such as, "One of the earliest cases that Clinton was assigned by the firm was a case in which she was the public defender to a man accused of raping a 12-year old girl". There is no need for so much detail about the case. Detail is better off being inclided in the dedicated article about Ms. Shelton
SecretName101 (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean, the case is notable in that it became a controversy/ a talking-point of critics during her 2016 campaign, but it is otherwise (from the perspective of creating a biography of Clinton) just another legal case she handled. It is not as though it were a landmark legal case. It set no new legal precedent, it was not appealed in higher courts. The case itself is certainly not an important enough facet of her Arkansas years to warrant a paragraph of coverage in Clinton's biography. If it had not been the center of controversy, news coverage, and a regular talking-point of detractors/opposition to her 2016 campaign, it would hardly be notable enough to merit mention at all on Wikipedia.

Having provided rationale for reducing its paragraph-long mention to a mere sentence. I feel confident enough in my judgement to proceed with editing the article in such a manner, and will now execute such an edit. SecretName101 (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I will look at your edit, but I tend to agree with the logic you present. Tvoz/talk 17:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, looking at the specifics, I don't agree that the weight given is excessive - it was a balanced description and while I agree it is a tiny factoid in her very long career, the fact that it did become a talking point in 2016 is why we mention it at all, and if we mention it I believe we need to summarize the longer article with a bit more than your edit did. Tvoz/talk 17:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
"Decades later, the victim said that the defense counsel had put her "through hell" during the legal process; Hillary Clinton has called the trial a "terrible case"". In my opinion this is most certainly excessive information about the case. The length that is spent on the subject of the rape case is most certainly out of proportion with its importance in the scope of her overall personal/professional biography.

Let me ask you is it justifiable the article would spend more than twice as long on the trial as it does on mentioning Clinton's post-grad work with the Children's Defense Fund? The mention of her post-grad work with the CDF is, "During her postgraduate studies, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.
Right now the article's mention of her post-grad work with the CDF is a single sentence containing 30 words (approx. 200 characters). And that is if you generously include the mention of her work as a a consultant with the Carnegie Council (excluding that, the mention of her post-grad CDF work alone totals a mere 19 words/ approx. 140 characters). Meanwhile, its mention of the rape trial totals in 77 words (approx. 440 characters).
As it stands, the article overemphasizes the importance of the case in the scope of Clinton's Arkansas years.
SecretName101 (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind, another talking point of Trump and his supporters was the unsubstantiated (presumably false) claim that Clinton was fired from the Watergate committee. Yet, in the sub-section From the East Coast to Arkansas, we do not hash out those facts (given, this is a flawed comparison, as her work with the Watergate committee would be in her biography no matter what, while it is doubtful that the rape case would without campaign-season controversy around it). SecretName101 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I would still argue that we should remove the "Decades later..." sentence.
@Tvoz, is there any particular reason for opting to restore that sentence (can you provide me an explanation of how, without that sentence, the mention of the trial would not sufficiently summarize the circumstancss of the trial?) SecretName101 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of the ways Trump supporters attempted to make a story out of this. I've edited this summary style article since 2007 in a major way with other editors and we have tried to keep a balanced voice when so-called controversies were added. When something reaches the level of noise that required a daughter article as this factoid did, we need to clearly articulate why it's in here, in the text of this article. The complaint decades later is why, but we certainly would not let that stand alone as it would give an unbalanced negative view. HRC's quote balances the "hell" quote. There is no reason, as you suggest and I agree, to mention this case at all in terms of her career, other than the fact that it was subject to press coverage years later - and now that there is an offshoot article we need something here. Further, by saying she tried unsuccessfully to be relieved of the assignment, but then offered an "effective defense" when she was not removed, I believe we are also being clear that this was her responsibility as an attorney, not representative of her personal views. And then we even say she went on to found the rape crisis center, further underlying what her personal views were. It is not as simple as just remove - and it never is as simple as counting words. I think this was a well-done way of including something that some people felt was important - but in a balanced way. It is very difficult sometimes to edit articles like this one - we have tried to do it fairly. Does anyone else have an opinion?Tvoz/talk 20:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2018

I would like to read more information to her post 2016 life (book and book tour), and I noticed a couple of inaccuracies in that part. Chelsea did not attend Trump's inauguration with her parents. Moreover, Hillary's appearance at the fundraiser for Elijah Cummings' Youth Program was in Baltimore yet the program is in Israel. That part is misleading. 47.63.105.200 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but first, the source quoted says Chelsea was there. If you have a reliable source contradicting it, please supply it here on Talk. Second, the name of the program is "Elijah Cummings Youth Program in Israel". Yes, the fundraiser was in Baltimore, where the organization is based. I'll see if we need to clarify the sentence. Tvoz/talk 18:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The book and book tour are also focused on in the article for What Happened. Not sure that any critical information about that is missing from the main HRC article. SecretName101 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead Intro

Like John McCain's Wikipedia page, included in the lead should state her presidential loss to her opponent.

John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is an American politician serving as the senior United States Senator from Arizona, a seat he was first elected to in 1986. He was the Republican nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election, which he lost to Barack Obama.

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and diplomat who served as the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001, U.S. Senator from New York from 2001 to 2009, 67th United States Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, and the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2016 election, losing to Donald Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C8C0:EC90:91A:B690:994:E29A (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This is stated later in the lead. I don't see any real need for this article to be consistent with McCain's in that respect; if that's your only argument you don't have much in my estimation. You could just as easily say that this should be saved for later in the lead because that what is done at Al Gore; our criteria for choosing which article(s) to be consistent with are fairly arbitrary and usually determined by what we want an article to do. The bottom line is that this doesn't matter that much from the reader's perspective, and trying to keep similar articles consistent on such things is largely a waste of our time. Just My Opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I concur with your opinion, Mandruss.Tvoz/talk 17:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with Mandruss. The fact that she lost is clearly implied in the opening paragraph, because it says she was the nominee but does not note that she won. And then, Trump's name appears later, in the lead. I see no problem with the current arrangement. Unschool 18:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I had to sleep on it, but I now think the OP's unstated argument is that this consistency is required for neutrality—that we are deprecating Trump here while not deprecating Obama at McCain. In other words, it's the "Wikipedia has a liberal bias" argument, which I generally reject out of hand. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I recognized that from the start, but remain unpersuaded. "Consistency" would mean consistency across the board, in every article on every losing nominee. I don't doubt that many an editor here edits with a pro-Hillary bias; I won't even deny that it is possible that this was the motivation behind the current version. But I don't care, because the current version is reasonable, and there are other articles on losing candidates that are written the same way. If this was the only one, then there'd be a point, but I'm not seeing it. (And incidentally, if anyone thinks that I am biased, I will openly confess to having been a Hillary Hater since 1982. But I try to keep my biases from affecting my editorial judgement.) Unschool 01:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no general tradition at Wikipedia to mention the fact of loss in the first sentence about unsuccessful presidential candidates. John McCain and John Kerry put it in the first sentence, but Bob Dole, Al Gore, and Mitt Romney put it later in the lede. It is an article-by-article decision and there is nothing to be consistent with. And we have done it both ways with candidates from both parties, so any speculation about political bias is completely unwarranted. --MelanieN alt (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I do think the IP address has a point and we should try to be consistent. I don't see a rational explanation to apply different standards in an encyclopedia. Perhaps we could trim McCain's and Kerry's ledes? Or expand HRC's? Which one is likely to reach consensus? And we may need an RfC for this.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
If it's been an article-by-article decision, that means the only "consistency" is that there is/has been no consistency. Logically it makes perfect sense to describe the events she is most notable for in the lead sentence -- and expand on them further in the lead paragraphs; ie. lead sentence: most notable for being the 2016 presidential nominee for the Democratic Party + expand further in lead paragraphs to mention losing to Trump, (as is adequately done). —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Fully protect this page

[11] Ross11245 (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ross11245: Please use WP:RFPP. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Why would we fully protect this page? (And it's not going to happen, but you can ask at RFFP.) Tvoz/talk 16:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead section

The current lead section, fifth paragraph, has this sentence: "She lost the presidential election to Republican opponent Donald J. Trump despite winning a plurality of the popular vote." I would suggest this sentence be reversed to say "Despite Clinton's winning a plurality of the popular vote, her Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, won the electoral vote and the presidency," or something similar. In its current form the Electoral College is not mentioned and someone unfamiliar with American politics might be confused by the current sentence.Polkadreamer (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If the reader doesn't understand how the electoral system works, it doesn't help them much to introduce the term "electoral vote" without explanation. Similarly, we say earlier in the lead that "Running for president in 2008, she won far more delegates than any previous female candidate...", not concerning ourselves with the fact that some readers have no idea what a "delegate" is in that context. A certain level of competence is required, particularly in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It is more important that she lost than that she won the popular vote. TFD (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
And we can always link to words like "electoral vote" and "delegate" for those who are unfamiliar with the concept. I'd leave the sentence the way it is. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it's best to leave the sentence as is, and would note that it's equally important that she lost while receiving 3 million more votes, which I believe is the largest vote margin in history while still losing the presidency. Teammm talk
email 08:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Does she really have two middle names?

Generally, people refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Diane was her maiden middle name, but I can't find much evidence that she still has that middle name. 108.245.173.217 (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, what is your evidence that she dropped the Diane? --Jayron32 15:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
? I have no bias one way or the other. That rhetorical question is weird. 108.245.173.217 (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Diane is her middle name, Rodham is her maiden name. Should we change it to "Hillary Diane Clinton, born Hillary Diane Rodham", like some article do? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Except she has never gone by "Hillary Diane Clinton", as far as I know. There's a lengthy explanation on "Note c" that explains the history of her public names. --Jayron32 15:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Very good point. My question was more of the devil's advocate variety than anything else. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Leave it as is, please. It's accurate and has been hashed out numerous times.Tvoz/talk 22:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I would assume it is Hillary Rodham Clinton, born Hillary Diane Rodham. CookieMonster755✉ 20:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The whole name issue is addressed at length in Cultural and political image of Hillary Clinton#Public name usage. bd2412 T 20:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Missing coverage for the mysterious Clinton "body-count"

Please, avoid the WP:LABEL "conspiracy theory". The Clinton body-count broadly means the observation that unusually many individuals directly as well as indirectly connected with the Clinton'es have died unnaturally. The body-count was a significant international discussion which has never fully resolved, with many Russia relations advocates still responding to allegations about convenient death's for the Putin administration citing the Clinton body-count. In politics, discrediting egregious and vulnerable opponents by gaslighting them and distorting their perception of reality, doesn't escape the realm of possibility. Simply because a notable person makes incredible statements, does not mean all their incredible statements can safely get assumed false. Instead more credible sources should and indeed have investigated their claims to what extent an outsider to the Clinton administration reasonably can given the resources commonly available to journalists. Many credible news sources have covered the Clinton body-count phenomenon: some editorializing; some simply stating what there investigations have found with minimal interpretation. Why doesn't this article cover or mention the topic even once?

Bear in mind, editorials by otherwise reliable publishers don't constitute reliable sources, except for facts citing primary sources which are endorsed by the publisher as an investigative secondary source. https://www.truthorfiction.com/clintonfriends/ Eaterjolly (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Please link to some reliable sources. Considering the nature of the claims, this one is enough for me until I see yours: Snopes.com - Clinton Body Bags. Please, avoid the WP:LABEL "conspiracy theory". No. Conspiracy theory. Get-A-Grip territory. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying the observation has any special conclusions behind it. I'm saying the observation was notable.
September 11 attacks#Cultural influence briefly mentions 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Your source made the same points my first did. Conspiracy theories get derived from this observation.
Underlying all that though, remains the interesting fact many important people died unnaturally.
Both fact-checkers point out politicians have loose connections while a few seem only associated by political employment.
NPR published one article reporting on two death's who could have gotten considered potential enemies for the Clintons.
Consider the moral expressed in WP:OUTRAGE. A POV need only notability to warrant weight in an article.
Giving that weight should make wikipedia fair, attractive, and complete, so any with illegitimate perceptions about reality feel attracted to reading and considering facts presented in wikipedia articles. Perhaps with more balance, fewer people would turn towards this [12] irredeemably poorly written article instead returning to wikipedia.
Eaterjolly (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Vince Foster again? Facepalm Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
PackMecEng (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Then again, playing devil's advocate, we have ten pages in Category:Conspiracy theories regarding Barack Obama. The Clintons were (and are) subject of many conspiracy theories *COUGHEMAILSBENGHAZICOUGH*. Should there be more devoted coverage to them? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The only thing I could really find was List of conspiracy theories#The Clintons, but it looks rather neglected. PackMecEng (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
So Vince Foster, Whitewater, "vast right-wing conspiracy", Pizzagate, Seth Rich, Benghazi, Budderemails... there's fertile ground there for expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
There is already a section Hillary Clinton#Whitewater and other investigations. TFD (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I had totally forgotten about the "cattle futures" thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
And what about Uranium One? [13]

Stop indulging this nonsense. No reliable sourcing, no notability, no way anything like this goes into a biography of her entire life and career. Tvoz/talk 00:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


The issue is weight. When CNN start talking about it, then it will appear here. Wikipedia articles should not present views ignored in reliable sources, but should report views presented in reliable sources. If you have a problem with that, then contact CNN and other news sources and complain about their coverage or get Wikipedia policy changed. TFD (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Handing out dollar bills

I noticed an edit at Nawal El Saadawi (diff) that someone with knowledge of the topic might like to check. It adds an opinion about Clinton:

She added that she remembered seeing then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Tahrir Square handing out dollar bills to the youth in order to encourage them to vote for the Muslim Brotherhood in the upcoming elections.ref

The claim is so peculiar that I would be interested in any backstory. Also, the statement was apparently made two weeks ago so there may be more activity. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Her Accomplishments are...incomplete.

I have added that she is one of the few presidential candidates to have an ongoing FBI investigation during her running into her accomplishments list. Some people disagree with me on this claim and keep removing my line. I don't see why as it's true, and is an accomplishment to be listed with the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keiththelegokid (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I was one of the people who reverted your addition of this info to the lead. For me, the issues were, firstly, that the info is already in the main article and didn't seem to me significant enough to make it into the lead - obviously that is a value call; and, secondly, that it is not sourced. The FBI investigation is sourced (ref 403) but as far as I can see (I can't access the full text) the reference does not make the specific claim that you added about her being one of the few candidates to have an FBI investigation whilst running for office. My understanding is that WP should summarise what sources say rather than adding to them as your statement seems to have done. Hope this helps, Tacyarg (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Tacyarg on this one. Your placement of this statement under "accomplishments" seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Reference specifically WP:BLP Section 2 Subsection 5 (2.5): "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced". Bear in mind WP:1RR if you choose to bring this issue up again, but if we are looking for consensus which you must receive to push this issue further (WP:CONSENSUS if you'd like to read about it), my vote is to concur with Tacyarg when he said that this should not be here. Bill Heller (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, of course Bill Heller is completely correct. This is utterly unacceptable. Tvoz/talk 05:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
So what you're saying is...if I can source that the statement is 100% true...we're good? Keiththelegokid
@Keiththelegokid: No. Soucing is not the only issue that has been brought up. There’s also WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I see the neutrality point, but if the fact is true, I see no reason it should not be listed with the positive exploits. Keiththelegokid
I am not seeing a consensus in favor of this position. bd2412 T 19:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2018

to add below link to 'email controversy', a link to your other Wiki article '2016 Democratic National Committee email leak' @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak. Many may confuse the two Clinton associated email controversies Marty1917 (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--B dash (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The article 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is not about Hillary Clinton or her emails and therefore should not be linked here.Phmoreno (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I mean they showed the DNC trying to help Hillary in the primaries over Sanders. They also show an attempt by Russia to damage the Clinton campaign specifically. Also her name is peppered throughout the article, she is defiantly definitely part of it. PackMecEng (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

2020 US Presidential Election

Do we want to add a section on the 2020 election? Namely recent comments from her long-time aides and expectations for her predicted candidacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.24.143 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The speculation of friends and of news-talk show talking heads is not sufficient for Wikipedia standards. We should wait until she says she's running. --Jayron32 19:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.24.143 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Pizzagate

Why isn't the Pizzagate conspiracy theory mentioned? It surely affected her presidential run.--92.244.17.51 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd assume because in the scope of her political career it's (WP:UNDUE) and WP:RECENT. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Kathy Shelton

By request. El_C 20:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nowhere on this page is Kathy Shelton mentioned. She was used by Donald Trump heavily during the 2016 election to claim Clinton was not sympathetic to sexual assault survivor. This is a notable person to mention, either on Clinton's wiki page under early years in her law career, or at the very least on her campaign page Dy3o2 (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is a faux controversy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Please support how it is a faux controversy? It is a factual event from her early career days that was brought up in the 2016 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy3o2 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
She was a court-appointed public defender and defended her [unsavoury] client (as she was supposed to). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I request this thread be closed. I looked at her early years section and see that it’s already addressed. Dy3o2 (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Clinton defended a rapist" content

At some point or another, someone added content to this page about Clinton working as a public defender for someone suspected of raping a child. There is nothing to this. It's a faux right-wing controversy intended to portray her advocacy on behalf of children and rape victims as insincere, and this nonsense is currently given disproportionate coverage in our Wikipedia article. This is the text that's thrown into the sub-section 'Early Arkansas years':

  • In one of her cases, the court required her to serve as defense counsel to a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl; after her request to be relieved of the assignment failed, Clinton used an effective defense and directed her client to plead guilty to a much lesser charge. Decades later, the victim said that the defense counsel had put her "through hell" during the legal process; Hillary Clinton has called the trial a "terrible case".

This incendiary item suggests that Clinton put the screws on a raped child when in fact she was just defending her client as any court-appointed public defender is ethically and legally bound to do. It does not belong here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't support removal of this. This mention does not portray her as insincere towards rape victims. It's a notable event from her early years that received media coverage. The entry states that she was just doing her job and did not want to work the case, that is a fair, neutral point of view based on the facts. Dy3o2 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not an HRC fan, by any stretch of the imagination, but knowing about this anecdote actually increases my regard for her. I mean, despite the difficulty of the situation, being forced to defend someone accused of such a heinous crime, she acted in the highest professional manner a member of the bar can achieve. No one on the right should dare accuse her of acting inappropriately, no one on the left should be ashamed of the role she played here. And while one can feel sympathy for the victim, there is a reason why we generally don't allow victims of such crimes to serve as jurors in similar cases—they lack the objective perspective that is necessary. For Mrs. Clinton to describe this as "a terrible case" is to say the only thing that everyone should be able to agree is true. I think that it is in HRC's interest to include this piece. Unschool 12:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Clearly that is true, but my point is in rebuttal to those who above who are portraying this as a deliberate attempt to smear her. "Smearing", you may realize, is never in a person's interest, yet no one above countered the argument that this "smears" her by saying that it is irrelevant. I note that no one brought in WP:BLP because the information is correct. I will grant that WP:WEIGHT is something worth discussing. However, I personally don't see that as a problem, because this information is not pejorative.
Regardless, it is worth repeating that you are correct to say that whether it is in her interest or not is not relevant. Let me strike that comment and proffer the following: It is in the article's interest to provide a fuller and historically accurate scope of Clinton's professional career. This incident can be neutrally phrased (it was already quite close, I thought) to show her professionalism in a challenging situation (much like John Adams, I would note). Unschool 14:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it has received sufficient coverage in mainstream sources to warrant inclusion. While a defense lawyer defending a client is not unusual, we generally say something in articles about defense lawyers about their major cases. TFD (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Please consider WP:PROPORTION - "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". Orville1974 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see any sources cited here. I don't see how we can decide if we don't see the sources. I have a lot of questions. When was this? Was it while she was working for the Rose law firm? How much public defender work did she do, and for how long? (Our article says she was rarely in court.) No other case she worked on as an attorney is mentioned in our article; why this one? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a lot of coverage. And I see that Trump brought it up during his campaign (at that point the victim had apparently become an anti-Hillary crusader) and that Hillary mentioned the case in her autobiography. All that suggests that the case does deserve a mention here, suitable sourced. Including information about when it was and what she was doing at the time. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • As you point out in your edit, Clinton discusses the case on pp. 73-74 of her 2003 autobiography, Living History. It seems to have enough weight for a brief mention in "Early Arkansas years." Should also mention that Clinton worked at a legal aid clinic. The controversy that emerged decades later is probably best left to the article about the case, since it never received much coverage during the 2016 campaign compared with say her paid speeches. TFD (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It appears Clinton considered this case significant enough to include in her autobiography, and her political opponent helped boost the incident's notability by getting the media to talk about it more than 3 decades after the fact (it didn't meet WP:GNG when it happened, as it really is just a case of a court-appointed lawyer doing her job, so there wouldn't have been a reason for the media to take an interest). However, it's also important to note that Kathy Shelton has made conflicting statements about her experience, some of which have been proven false, (the details are in the Kathy Shelton article); therefore:
    * I propose adding the following excerpt into the Early Arkansas years section of the article: As a court-appointed lawyer, Clinton was required to serve as defense counsel to a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl; after her request to be relieved of the assignment failed, she used an effective defense and directed her client to plead guilty to a much lesser charge. Clinton has called the trial a "terrible case".[1] Orville1974 (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Contorno, Steve (July 17, 2014). "Did Hillary Clinton ask to be 'relieved' from representing an accused rapist in 1970s?". PolitiFact.
I have only one minor quibble, and that's the use of the word "much" in "much lesser offense." The source does not use that language, and thus how "much" lesser is a subjective opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I thought about that also, but the defendant was originally charged with rape of a minor, which is very serious, and ended up pleading to an offense for which he only received a year in jail (and several years of probation). I would not object if "much" was removed; either way, it was obviously a lesser offense, which is just how plea deals work. Of course, prosecutors also tend to "overcharge" in the first place, so they have a place from which to negotiate down, but we don't want to get into that here. bd2412 T 03:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm neutral about whether it should be included or left out. I didn't ponder that particular word when I made the proposal. Orville1974 (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Format of name in introduction

In the introduction of the article it reads Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née Rodham; born October 26, 1947). However, having Rodham and (née Rodham) is not necessary and repetitive. It should either be Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1974) or Hillary Rodham Clinton (née Hillary Diane Rodham; born October 26, 1947). Is there any sources for what her current legal name is? Is it Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or simply, Hillary Rodham Clinton? This should be discussed on how the introduction of the article should be read. CookieMonster755✉ 22:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Clinton's current legal name is unclear, since she has used different variations on different legal documents. See Cultural and political image of Hillary Clinton#Public name usage. That said, I have no objection to Hillary Rodham Clinton (née Hillary Diane Rodham; born October 26, 1947). bd2412 T 22:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with bd2412, use Hillary Rodham Clinton (née Hillary Diane Rodham; born October 26, 1947). Unschool 23:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with CoookieMonster's suggestion. She doesn't consistently include "Rodham" (although she used to - in fact it used to be in the title of this article). But she uses it often enough that we should use "Hillary Rodham Clinton (née Hillary Diane Rodham)" in the lead sentence. As far as I know she has never used "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" as her name. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there actually such a thing in US law as a "legal name"? The information for the US on that page is somewhat minimal but implies that it follows common law practice of use rather than statutory registration, which would render the question "What is her current legal name?" meaningless. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". It doesn't matter whether Clinton has a multiplicity of names, it matters which one is most common in our sources. It's not even close. For example, Googling the two phrases, "Hillary Clinton" generates 73,400,000 results; "Hillary Rodham Clinton" generates only 4,880,000 results. Restricting the search to news produces a similar disparity: 26,400,000 vs. 3,950,000. I could do more searches but they're all going to come up the same. We have an accepted guideline and the answer is clear: her WP:COMMONNAME is "Hillary Clinton", not "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Msnicki (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
We're not talking about the article title, we're talking about the lede. bd2412 T 22:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
We usually use the legal name of a person for the lede but we use COMMONNAME for the article title. Those two are different. So yes, it is a fair question to ask, what her legal name is. Unfortunately, it is not clear. CookieMonster755✉ 17:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The article lead, should match the article title. Also, we shouldn't be using her 'birth surname' twice. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The article lead, should match the article title. Nope. MOS:FULLNAME: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials)." Followed by three real-life examples in which the article lead does not match the article title.
Also, we shouldn't be using her 'birth surname' twice. Citation needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s been a week since CookieMonster suggested this version: Hillary Rodham Clinton (née Hillary Diane Rodham) Supporting this suggestion we have: CookieMonster, bd2412, Unschool, and MelanieN. Other people in the discussion have questioned what her full legal name is, without suggesting what our lead sentence ought to say. Nobody has spoken in favor of what we used to have, “Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton”. CookieMonster’s suggestion is currently in the article.

Over the past week several people changed it to other versions. Those people are now here for discussion; thank you. IMO both proposed versions are problematic:

  • Hillary Diane Clinton (née Rodham) - as far as I know she has never used the formulation “Hillary Diane Clinton”.
  • Hillary Clinton (née Hillary Diane Rodham) - as Mandruss pointed out, the lead is supposed to be the person's full name, not the common name, and it does NOT necessarily match the article title which is the common name.

I do think the current formulation is the proper one. She used “Hillary Rodham” and then “Hillary Rodham Clinton” as her formal name and signature for most of her life - dropping the “Rodham” for common use when she ran for president, but retaining it for formal purposes. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll Support that as the least unacceptable alternative. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Go with Hillary Clinton (née Hillary Diane Rodham), for the lead. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the current formulation (Hillary Rodham Clinton (née Hillary Diane Rodham) is perfect. From the time of her marriage until 1982, she was simply "Hillary Rodham", at which time she adhered "Clinton". When she became first lady, she emphasized this full name. From the New York Times[14], this is HRC's press secretary, in February of 1993:

"The fact is," the press secretary, Lisa Caputo, said recently in mild exasperation. "Hillary Rodham Clinton has been the First Lady's name all along, since 1982. We're at a loss as to why people think this is something that we're just trying to change now."

The article goes on to say that that this is how she has signed her name since 1982, although she has never changed her legal name from Hillary Rodham. Unschool 21:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The current form is not best. But since a number of editors prefer it the way it is, it's likely gonna remain that way. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_47&oldid=1092026765"