Talk:Hillary Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton)
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Hillary Clinton is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.


@Professor JR: Is there some reason why this article suddenly earned an advert tag? If there is purely promotional content in the article it should be removed.- MrX 15:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

  • It is already removed apparently. I don't think such a tag is going to stick without consensus, which also won't happen.--Milowenthasspoken 15:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
That works for me.- MrX 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Works for me too. Professor JR should know better by now. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Some serious WTF-ittude coming from my direction right now. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FBI Investigation[edit]

How many reliable sources need to report on the FBI investigation of Clinton's handling of classified information before it's worthy of inclusion in this article?CFredkin (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a whole article on the subject, which this article points to already. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The content included here is not nearly representative of the information available on the issue.CFredkin (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it is too soon to say whether this will amount to anything noteworthy. bd2412 T 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412:The mere fact of an FBI investigation is noteworthy by any normal, non-POV standards --- and as to "whether this will amount to anything noteworthy", either an indictment, or exoneration would also be noteworthy by most people's standards. --- Professor JR (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC) @CFredkin:cc
Ridiculous. Maybe the FBI is just doing its due diligence and nothing will come of it. There's a whole article for this already, and there is no need to go into such much unnecessary detail... unless, of course, you are trying to push an agenda? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You can be assured that the FBI is "doing its due diligence". As for "Maybe...nothing will come of it", that would be noteworthy, and greatly to Clinton's benefit. (And, please desist from the implied, personal accusations --- we're all just trying for good faith, non-POV encyclopedia quality here.) --- Professor JR (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection, however, to Professor JR's added text, which succinctly identifies the fact. bd2412 T 17:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It's superfluous, and it does not have the necessary context available in the full article, giving a false impression. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Most people wouldn't consider it unduly trivial if the FBI were investigating them, but apparently you feel it would be 'superfluous' if they were investigating you(?) --- and, we're not running for President --- at least I'm not. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe if you understood what the word "superfluous" means, you would be able to produce a response that makes some kind of sense. Since you don't apparently know, you have reduced yourself to edit warring again. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead of the main article on the controversy is a summary of that article per WP:LEDE, and a good summary here per WP:SUMMARY. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes a certain amount of sense. Nobody can possibly object to a cited version of that opening paragraph being used here, unless they were keen to push an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As someone once said: "At this point, what difference does it make?" --- Professor JR (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

An obvious WP:NOTFORUM comment. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reports of the FBI investigation are well and widely-sourced. I don't understand why it wouldn't be mentioned here.CFredkin (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it is not mentioned in the main article's lead and it is UNDUE without the necessary context. That simple. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
We're not talking about the main article here.CFredkin (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree, but we are talking about respecting WP:SUMMARY. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Cwobeel and Scjessey on this. Summary style is indeed the point. And that neutrality banner misrepresents this discussion, unless there is an agenda for wanting to include more in this article at this time. Tvoz/talk 01:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
From here, it appears that there's an agenda involved in suppressing this information. The fact that the same group of editors has successfully suppressed the information in the main article isn't a valid reason for suppressing it here.CFredkin (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Is that so? I haven't suppressed anything, and in fact I haven't even edited the other article. One could say that the same group of editors who want to add as much negative material as they can into this BLP have an agenda. Oh yeah, I said that above. Last time I checked, we were not a newspaper. If the FBI investigation turns up something of significance to HRC's life, then the biography of her life will include it as part of the summary of the article dedicated to the minutiae of this matter. Wait and see - there is no deadline, at least not one that is based on the encyclopedia's needs. Tvoz/talk 03:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
And it is hard to imagine how CFredkin can think we are "suppressing" it when there's an entire article dedicated to it, documenting everything about the FBI investigation in exhaustive detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I guess I should've seen this coming. Faced with a consensus to use a cited version of the lede from Hillary Clinton email controversy here, ProfessorJR is now attempting to change the lede there, presumably to then echo the change here. Pretty shameless. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:POINTY comes to mind. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The reality is that the FBI is not conducting an formal investigation. It is a probe focused broadly on how possible classified material was handled. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Casually throwing around the word "investigation" in this forum is dangerous. The FBI has made no indication that it plans on launching a criminal inquiry. There's even a debate within the GOP ranks as to whether they should open a separate probe. Best to let the current "probe" run its course, then edit accordingly.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
A new Politico article says that even while the FBI has stepped up interviews, the agency is still not labeling the scope of its probe as an investigation. See (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
And neither should we. Tvoz/talk 17:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


Misleading edit summaries are unacceptable, and so is stuffing negative quotes into references. Moreover, this article is about Hillary Clinton, so editors should not be trying to shoehorn negative POV aimed at the Bill Clinton administration into it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Professor JR continues to try to add this stuff that is specific to the administration of Bill Clinton, and not specific to the subject of this article. This has been going on for days now, with no attempt by this editor to engage in a talk page discussion about this disputed content. Per WP:BRD, Professor JR must seek consensus to add this controversial material. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is Hillary Clinton leaving out 'Rodham'?[edit]

I have added the above information to the note on the subject's name. At this point, I would actually suggest having a separate article on this, as the note itself is both longer and more fully cited than many articles I have seen. bd2412 T 22:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Meh. You guys want a cookie for being right? Ok, I would support a move now. If only because of the triangulation of politics from HRC. Face-tongue.svg Dave Dial (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I am genuinely proposing a separate article, like Names of Myanmar or Names of God. That way, the current lengthy note could be summarized in a single link, saving a few bytes from this article and letting the topic neatly be presented in another. bd2412 T 02:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


please put in a reference to her hypothyroidism. it is a big deal and relevant to others with the same issue. thank you...[I think it's relevant bc of the symptoms(when undertreated): irritability, fatigue, memory loss, depression...] i also think 10% is rare enough to be interesting.

She also has seasonal allergies, and we don't include that either. Find a reliable source that says these minor medical issues are a "big deal" to the story of her life, and we'll consider including it. Tvoz/talk 07:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
As it happens, I have hypothyroidism, as does about ten percent of the population, although most people who have it are unaware of it. I take a supplement once a week, and it otherwise does not affect my life. The editor who posted this question might even have it, and be unaware of it. It seems like an unremarkable thing to mention in articles on politicians - we have no mention of it in articles on Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, for example. bd2412 T 19:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is extremely common and benign when treated. Unless there's an announcement of thyroid cancer or actual acute episodes notable in themselves, listing this would be like reporting thinning hair. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The more interesting part is that her doctor gave her a clean bill of health, but even that I don't think we need to mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)