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.

Reverted edits[edit]

The following edits were reverted in their entirety. They are all well-sourced. More sources can be provided. What specifically is the issue with each?

  1. Following the demise of the Gaddafi regime, Libya subsided into the "chaos of failed statehood" becoming a refuge for extremists and terrorist groups, such as ISIS, and spurring a massive refugee crisis as immigrants crossed the Mediterranean to southern Europe.[1]
  2. Prior to assuming the role of Secretary of State, Clinton signed an agreement with the administration which precluded the foundation from accepting new donations from foreign goverments during her tenure in order to mitigate the potential for inappropriate influence of the State Department. In February 2015, the Washington Post reported that the foundation had accepted $500,000 from Algeria in 2010, in apparent violation of her agreement with the administration. The foundation indicated that the donation was to contribute to relief efforts in Haiti. The Post noted that the donation "coincided with a spike" in lobbying efforts by Algeria of the State Department regarding their human rights record.[2]
  3. From 2009 to 2013, the Russian atomic energy agency (Rosatom) acquired Uranium One, a Canadian company with global uranium mining stakes including 20% of the uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset with national security implications, the acquisition required approval by the State Department, which was then headed by Clinton. In April 2015, the New York Times reported that, during the acquisition, the family foundation of Uranium One's chairman made $2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. The donations were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite a prior agreement to do so. In addition, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and which was promoting Uranium One stock paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow shortly after the acquisition was announced.[3]
  4. Clinton subsequently resigned from the foundation's board in April 2015 when she began her presidential campaign; the foundation said it would accept new foreign governmental donations from six western nations only.[nb 1]
  5. The foundation has stated that 88% of the contributions it receives goes to charity work. Other sources have reported that roughly 10% of contributions to the foundation goes to charitable activity. The foundation raised over $140 million in 2013, while spending $85 million of which $9 million was allocated to grants to other organizations.[5][6]CFredkin (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Collinson, Stephen (June 15, 2015). "Hillary Clinton's real Libya problem". CNN. 
  2. ^ Helderman, Rosalind S.; Hamburger, Tom (February 25, 2015). "Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.". The Washington Post. 
  3. ^ Becker, Jo; McIntire, Mike (April 23, 2015). "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal". The New York Times. 
  4. ^ Braun, Stephen (April 16, 2015). "Clinton Foundation only allowing six foreign countries to donate". The Boston Globe. Associated Press. 
  5. ^ Zimmerman, Malia (April 29, 2015). "'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charitable spending". Fox News. 
  6. ^ Vincent, Isabel (April 26, 2015). "Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a 'slush fund"". New York Post. 

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It appears that all of these edits were to the section titled "Clinton Foundation, e-mails issue, and other activities" except for the first set of edits about Libya (which were in the subsection titled "Events of 2011–13 and overall themes"). I think it would be useful to first consider the Libya stuff, and then the rest.

The Libya edits merely inserted this:

"Following the demise of the Gaddafi regime, Libya subsided into the 'chaos of failed statehood' becoming a refuge for extremists and terrorist groups, such as ISIS, and spurring a massive refugee crisis as immigrants crossed the Mediterranean to southern Europe.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/hillary-clinton-libya-election-2016/index.html |title=Hillary Clinton's real Libya problem |author=Collinson, Stephen |work=[[CNN]] |date=June 15, 2015}}</ref>"

I support insertion of this brief statement; it makes no sense to say she succeeded in overthrowing Khadafy and then omit what then happened to the country. The Benghazi attack is mentioned later on, but without any context about the country's fate after Khadafy died.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  • That's the section I have the most problem with. The action was one that Clinton supported, the addition is what has happened afterwards in some sections of the Country. One is a decision Clinton and senior advisers helped craft, the other is a political attack generated by Rand Paul and doesn't have any direct bearing on HRC or her BLP. Perhaps it can be included(in a much more neutral manner) in the campaign article. It should not be included here, especially worded in the manner that makes innuendos that HRC somehow has responsibility for what has transpired in Libya after the good Colonels demise. Dave Dial (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The reference to Rand Paul in the source is made in passing and is not the basis for the article. The source draws a direct link between Clinton's role as a driver of the military intervention in Libya and the state of the country today.CFredkin (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Hillary and her supporters have touted her role re Libya as a key accomplishment during her time as Sec of State. It's misleading not to include the whole story there.CFredkin (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Amazing how it is always that when it is someone not aligned to you politics, adding material that may be deemed as negative is always supported by you. Amazing. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it is not amazing, it is outrageous. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Pots and kettles. Let's just try to follow reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
User:DD2K, Do you have anything to say in response to my previous post?CFredkin (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Not really. The problem with that entry is the same, whether the Rand Paul attack is minimal or not. It doesn't belong in her bio. The Arab Spring was/is a moving movement, so who knows where it ends up. It could be like Reagan and Bush supplying the 'Freedom Fighters' in Afghanistan that turned into the Taliban/Al Queada, or it could have been like the CIA/American support for the Shah of Iran. Historical context will be made, it's still moving and there is no need to add this here. Perhaps in another article, in a neutral manner. Dave Dial (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
So let's follow the Ronald Reagan article which says, "President Reagan's Covert Action program has been given credit for assisting in ending the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, though some of the United States funded armaments introduced then would later pose a threat to U.S. troops in the 2000s (decade) war in Afghanistan." We might also want to mention that HRC spearheaded not just decapitating the Libya regime, but doing so without any congressional authorization; Khadafy's prior surrender of his nuclear weapons program has led many analysts to conclude that killing him disincentivized such nuclear cooperation by other regimes. All of this could not possibly be more relevant biographically to Mrs. Clinton, just as arming the mujahadeen is to Mr. Reagan.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. Is there some alternative wording that either of you would like to propose?CFredkin (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC) I'd also be interested to know if anyone else supports DD2K's stance that this content should not appear in the article in any form....CFredkin (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
In the absence of other suggestions, I'll propose a modified version of the sentence which attempts to soften its tone in the vein of the Reagan example provided above:

"It has been suggested that the power vacuum in Libya created by the demise of the Gaddafi regime contributed to its slide into the 'chaos of failed statehood' in which it became a refuge for extremists and terrorist groups, such as ISIS, and spurred a refugee crisis as immigrants crossed the Mediterranean to southern Europe.[1]"CFredkin (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Collinson, Stephen (June 15, 2015). "Hillary Clinton's real Libya problem". CNN. 
  • I support Dave Dial's comments entirely - this material does not belong in her biography. Perhaps in the article specifically about her tenure at State, although I'd have to look at that more closely before endorsing that, and Rand Paul's attack perhaps in the presidential campaign article - again, I'd want to look at that more closely before endorsing it - but certainly not in the BLP of her whole life. And I think that doing this in just over 24 hours from the first comment here is not giving folks enough time to even see it and respond. (As for what's in the Reagan article, so what? I might think it doesn't belong there either - I haven't looked.) Tvoz/talk 23:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

OK, so what's the objection to the following edit?

From 2009 to 2013, the Russian atomic energy agency (Rosatom) acquired Uranium One, a Canadian company with global uranium mining stakes including 20% of the uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset with national security implications, the acquisition required approval by the State Department, which was then headed by Clinton. In April 2015, the New York Times reported that, during the acquisition, the family foundation of Uranium One's chairman made $2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. The donations were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite a prior agreement to do so. In addition, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and which was promoting Uranium One stock paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow shortly after the acquisition was announced.[1]

CFredkin (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Becker, Jo; McIntire, Mike (April 23, 2015). "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal". The New York Times. 
  • This is not appropriate for her biography - any mention of it would belong, and is found, in the Clinton Foundation article. Further, the last time I checked, Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton were two different people. This is her biography. Tvoz/talk 02:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And by the way, the wording proposed is way too close to the NYT article - flirting with copyvio.Tvoz/talk 03:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually I believe it probably belongs in a section of her bio related to her stint as Secretary of State. The source repeatedly mentions her involvement with this situation in that context.CFredkin (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Have been away for awhile, now catching up. Will discuss edit issue #1, the Libya aftermath question, in the section below.

Regarding edit issue #2, this is pretty much already in the article – see sentence "The foundation began accepting new donations from foreign governments, which it had stopped doing while she was secretary.[nb 15]" and the text in Note 15. The only part that isn't is about WaPo's statement about a spike in Algeria lobbying, but there's no evidence in that story about Algeria getting anything in return, so this aspect isn't worth mentioning here.

Regarding edit issue #3, this belongs in the Clinton Foundation article, where it already is in both the "History" and "Transparency" sections. Regarding Hillary's role in this, the NYT story in question says "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown" and quotes the Hillary campaign as pushing back strongly on it, saying "multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary." Given that, it doesn't belong in this article.

Regarding edit issue #4, this is already in the article; see "Clinton subsequently resigned from the foundation's board in April 2015 ..." and again the text in Note 15.

Regarding edit issue #5, the financial/charitable structure of the Clinton Foundation is somewhat unconventional and complicated and needs to be explained in that article, not here. Hillary was only part of the Foundation for two years (early 2013 – early 2015) and has had very little to do with how the Foundation operates. Whatever you think of the Clinton Foundation, good or bad or somewhere in between, its history and actions have been far more reflective of Bill than Hillary, and as Tvoz correctly points out above, they are two separate people. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

To follow up on #2, the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article now contains a mention of the spike in Algeria lobbying, but also includes a description of the negative reports on Algeria's human rights record that the State Department issued for the next two years afterward, thus indicating that Algeria got nothing in return. Thus I continue to believe that there's no need to mention the spike in this main BLP article.
And to follow up on #3, the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article now contains a paragraph on the Uranium One business, giving various perspectives on it. However, given that the bottom line is, as emphasized by this FactCheck.org piece, that there is no evidence that the Clinton Foundation donations influenced Hillary's official actions, and that multiple other U.S. governmental agencies approved the same deal, I continue to believe that this matter is not significant enough to warrant inclusion in this main BLP article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
After further consideration, I agree with the points above regarding #1, #4, and #5. However #2 & #3 above and their relationship to Hillary's tenure as Sec of State have been discussed extensively in the media...

Partial list of sources for donation by Algeria:

  1. Foreign governments gave millions to Foundation while Clinton was at State Dept, Washington Post
  2. What the Clinton Foundation is costing Hillary, New York Times
  3. The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for, Salon
  4. Clinton Foundation: 2010 donation broke Obama administration agreement, CNN
  5. Hillay Clinton's 'obsession' with money could be an obstacle for her 2016 campaign, Business Insider
  6. Will the Clinton Foundation come to haunt Hillary?, Bloomberg
  7. Donations leave Hillary in a Cloud, RealClearPolitics

Partial list of sources for donations re Uranium One:

  1. Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation amid Russian uranium deal, New York Times
  2. The Clinton Foundation received millions from investors as Putin took over 20% of US uranium deposits, Business Insider
  3. Gifts to Hillary Clinton’s Family Charity Are Scrutinized in Wake of Book, Wall Street Journal
  4. 'Clinton Cash' author demolishes Hillary's self-defense, New York Post
  5. The Clinton Foundation received millions from investors as Putin took over 20% of US uranium deposits, Yahoo! News
  6. How Putin’s Russia Gained Control of a U.S. Uranium Mine, Bloomberg
  7. Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians gained U.S. uranium assets, Seattle Times
Given that, these subjects seem as worthy of mention in the section re her tenure as Sec of State in her bio as anything else currently mentioned there.CFredkin (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Algeria donation, as noted above it's already in the article as part of Note 15, the only thing that is missing is the spike in donations. But Algeria got nothing in return for this spike – during the next two years the State Department still issued human rights reports on the country that were full of criticism. The tenure article now states this, but what is the utility in including this here?

Regarding the Uranium One sources, with one exception all of these are from around April 23, when the story first appeared in the New York Times, and a lot of them are rehashes of the same points. (That exception is a June op-ed by Schweizer in the New York Post, which isn't usable as a RS.) The Uranium One story has not had "legs", for the simple reason that there's no evidence that Hillary even personally approved it nor that the State Department or the rest of the U.S. government agencies who approved it would have done anything differently if there hadn't been donations to the Clinton Foundation.

However, what the "Clinton Foundation ..." section may be missing is some kind of general statement that the donations made by foreign governments to the Foundation during Hillary's tenure subsequently raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest, even if there was no direct evidence of her altering decisions because of them. Let me see if I can come up with something for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't know that Algeria got nothing for their donation. That's an assumption that's not stated by the sources. It's possible that there were worse things the State Department could have reported or stronger actions it could have taken that were pre-empted by the "donation". While it's true that it hasn't actually been proven that Hillary had direct personal involvement in either scenario, that fact has not prevented the Fort Lee Lane Closure scandal from being mentioned prominently in Christie's bio. The known facts in this case are compelling in and of themselves, Hillary could certainly have prevented the appearance of wrongdoing by preventing the Foundation from accepting questionable "donations", and it's misleading not to mention them.CFredkin (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You've raised the Fort Lane lane closure matter a couple of times, so it's worth pointing out why that's different. In that case, Christie's deputy chief of staff and two high-ranking Christie appointments at the Port Authority have been indicted by federal authorities, with one of them pleading guilty in a deal, for multiple counts of conspiracy to punish local citizens via traffic flow in order to exact political revenge against a local official. And even if there is no evidence Christie was aware of this act, it has been very damaging to him politically – he has gone from being considered one of the Republican front-runners for 2016 to being in danger of relegation to the kiddie table for the next debate – and thus is of biographical significance. The rough equivalent would be if one of Hillary's top aides and two of her embassy-level appointments were under federal indictment for putting the screws to some foreign country (by stopping visa processing for its citizens, say) because that country's government was refusing to make donations to the Clinton Foundation. But nothing even close to that has happened. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of issues that have likely contributed to Christie's fall from grace, including state budget issues and multiple consecutive credit downgrades for the state (which are also mentioned in his bio). The Lane Closure scandal definitely is the most prominent factor. However the other issues have likely played a part, although Christie is not solely responsible for them. Likewise, the "donation" by Algeria (WP, 2/25), the email scandal (NYT, 3/2), and the Uranium One "donations" (NYT, 4/23) all broke within a 2 month period. The email scandal has definitely been the most prominent. However the other issues likely also had some impact on the decline in her popularity and credibility (although it's impossible to say to what extent). Consequently, and given the widespread coverage all three issues had in mainstream media sources, it seems reasonable to mention them all.CFredkin (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you about Christie's other problems and about the e-mail issue being the biggest of Hillary's recent problems. But the other damage to her hasn't been from the Algeria and Uranium One stories in particular – I doubt one out of a hundred poll responders could even name them. And it's not other specific stories - the UBS/IRS one or the Canadian donors one or the donations from Middle Eastern countries one that deny women's rights one or whatever. It's been from the general sense that somewhere in all the foreign donations to the Foundation – the ones that were allowed to continue while she was secretary, the ones that resumed after she left even though she might again be back in office as president – and in the money Bill got for speeches (even though approved by State) and that she gave between leaving office and starting her campaign – that in all of this, there is a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict of interest, or something just plain unseemly, even though there is no evidence of quid pro quo's being granted or decisions that she altered from what she would have done anyway. I'm still looking for a really good published overview story that says this – it's not ideal as a source here, but this Doyle McManus column is in the ballpark of what I'm getting at. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
At this point, since the arguments on either side have been made, would you be amenable to a neutral WP:Third Opinion on this?CFredkin (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Can the following sentence be added to the description of Clinton's role in the 2011 military intervention in Libya in her bio?[edit]

This RfC was closed based on alternative proposal from User: Wasted Time R. CFredkin (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2015 (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.

Proposed sentence:

"It has been suggested that the power vacuum in Libya created by the demise of the Gaddafi regime contributed to its slide into the 'chaos of failed statehood' in which it became a refuge for extremists and terrorist groups, such as ISIS, and spurred a refugee crisis as immigrants crossed the Mediterranean to southern Europe.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/hillary-clinton-libya-election-2016/index.html |title=Hillary Clinton's real Libya problem |author=Collinson, Stephen |work=[[CNN]] |date=June 15, 2015}}</ref>"

To be appended to the following from the article:

"As the Libyan Civil War took place, Clinton's shift in favor of military intervention aligned her with Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and National Security Council figure Samantha Power and was a key turning point in overcoming internal administration opposition from Defense Secretary Gates, security advisor Thomas Donilon, and counterterrorism advisor John Brennan in gaining the backing for, and Arab and U.N. approval of, the 2011 military intervention in Libya.[330][331][332] She later used U.S. allies and what she called "convening power" to help keep the Libyan rebels unified as they eventually overthrew the Gaddafi regime.[332]"

00:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFredkin (talkcontribs)

Comments[edit]

  • Yes The sentence is very well sourced and the source draws a direct link between Clinton's role as a driver of the military intervention in Libya and the state of the country today. Hillary and her supporters have touted her role re Libya as a key accomplishment during her time as Sec of State. It's misleading not to include the whole story there.CFredkin (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No that is an opinion stated as a fact. And we should never start a sentence with a "it has been suggested" as it is poor writing and it does not say who made that suggestion, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No as Cwobeel says, that is an opinion, albeit sourced, and it is inappropriate to include someone's speculation about what may have been the cause of the state of the country after her tenure. This is her biography, so what is relevant is what she did, not what someone thinks might have been the result later on. And that " Hillary and her supporters have touted her role re Libya as a key accomplishment during her time as Sec of State." has nothing to do with how we write her biography. Tvoz/talk 02:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not yet. Cwobeel is correct that we should never start a sentence with a "it has been suggested". But that could be easily fixed if it is changed to "According to CNN". The source seems to be a news report rather than an opinion piece, which is good (it says at the end "CNN's Barbara Starr contributed to this report"). My main concern is that we need to be summarizing the sub-article, per WP:Summary style. The pertinent sub-article is Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. So, the best thing would be to make sure that sub-article is correct and complete, and then include an improved summary here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No, as it is innuendo phrased as fact. Tarc (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Add a little, but not all of this. It's fair enough to briefly state in this article that while the coalition military invention in the Libyan Civil War was successful in getting rid of Qaddafi, it has not been successful in producing a stable or pro-Western regime afterward, and underneath this to add a link to the Aftermath of the 2011 Libyan Civil War article. It's an oversight on my part that such text and link has not been in here already. However, I would not add all that is being proposed in this RfC. Everyone will agree that the current state of Libya is unsatisfactory from the U.S. point of view, but not everyone will agree that the intervention caused this or that the intervention was a bad idea given what was known at the time. And remember that in this part of the world, everything tends to go to hell on its own. Look at the Syrian Civil War, where without U.S. military intervention against Assad there has also been an even worse failed state, even worse ISIL breeding ground, even worse generator of refugees. I've seen a half-dozen differing assessments of wisdom of the Libyan intervention and to pick just one CNN piece to characterize this is to way oversimplify it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No, how is it related to Clinton? It's suggesting it was the fault of the Qaddafi regime - put it in his article. МандичкаYO 😜 00:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes This is directly related to her tenure. They heavily pushed the removal of Qaddafi from power while she was at State. Now Libya is unstable, and this can be sourced.   Spartan7W §   13:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. The citation is more about how Libya's current state could affect Clinton's campaign. Written the way it is now, and especially appended onto that paragraph, implies that Clinton is to blame for the state of Libya, not that the state of Libya could cause problems in her campaign. If anything, info on Libya after Gaddafi's ouster belongs in Death of Muammar Gaddafi. Fuzchia (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes Supported by a logical reading of RS (conditioned on the existence of a qualifying prefix, however - others have objected to "it has been suggested" ... I don't object to that, but am also content with an alternate qualifier like "According to CNN ..." or whatever). LavaBaron (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal[edit]

It looks like the above RfC proposal isn't going to fly, but I still think something should be briefly mentioned about this.

I've recently added the following on the subject to the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article:

Over the next few years, the aftermath of the Libyan Civil War became characterized by instability, two rival governments, and a slide into status as a failed state; it became a refuge for extremists and terrorist groups, such as ISIL, and spurred a massive refugee crisis as immigrants crossed the Mediterranean to southern Europe.[1] The wisdom of the intervention would continue to be debated, with President Obama maintaining that the intervention had been worthwhile but that the United States and Europe underestimated the ongoing effort needed to rebuild Libyan society afterward;[2] former U.S. Representative to NATO Ivo Daalder stating that the limited goals of the intervention had all been met but that the Libyan people had not seized their opportunity to form a better future and that post-intervention military involvement by the West would have been counterproductive;[3] and scholar Alan J. Kuperman (along with some other scholars and human rights groups) writing that the intervention had been based on the faulty notion that Libya had been headed towards humanitarian disaster when in fact it was not and was thus the intervention was "an abject failure, judged even by its own standards".[4][5] Kuperman's view that Gaddafi son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi held promise as a Western-style political reformer was in turn disputed by former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Derek Chollet, who stated that such faith was misplaced and that Libyans were resistant to any post-intervention security mechanism and to many rebuilding programs.[6] Clinton said in her 2014 memoir that she had been "worried that the challenges ahead would prove overwhelming for even the most well-meaning transitional leaders. If the new government could consolidate its authority, provide security, use oil revenues to rebuild, disarm the militias, and keep extremists out, then Libya would have a fighting chance at building a stable democracy. If not, then the country would face very difficult challenges translating the hopes of a revolution into a free, secure, and prosperous future."[1]

That's obviously way too much for a main BLP article, but it does illustrate that there are a lot of different perspectives on the intervention. In this article, I propose to add just this:

The aftermath of the Libyan Civil War saw the country becoming a failed state,[7] and the wisdom of the intervention and interpretation of what happened afterward would become the subject of considerable debate.[8][9][10]

Is this something everyone could be agreeable to? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a good summary as far as it goes, so I would support it. My question is about completeness of the sub-article. The "regime change" was done without seeking congressional authorization, as I recall, and I would be curious to know HRC's position on that. Moreover, Gaddafi had surrendered his nuclear weapons program, and I seem to recollect that his subsequent toppling was criticized as incentivizing other nations to acquire and never surrender such programs. I could be mistaken about these recollections, and could try to google these matters, but maybe you can refresh these recollections.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The US domestic reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya article gets into the Congressional aspect somewhat. But I think that was considered 'domestic politics', and in a quick look on the web I can't find Hillary commenting on the question. Not that there's anything unique about this - the entire campaign against ISIL has also occurred without congressional authorization. Given how dysfunctional Congress has been, statespeople aren't going to sit around and wait for it to do something. Yes, the argument you mention re Qaddafi was made. A variant could also be made about the Iraq War – Saddam gave up his program but still got toppled – or even about Iran – they negotiate a deal with one president but if the other party wins the election they've promised to tear the deal into small pieces on Inauguration Day. A lot of disincentivizing going on. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It's fine with me if you insert your proposed language here. We can hash out the rest at the respective sub-articles, and possibly add more here later. I know executive branch officials don't like to wait for Congress to make laws, but they often feel obliged to do so (both Iraq wars plus the Afghanistan war were authorized by Congress). As for Sadaam, he refused to allow inspectors into his many palaces to confirm the absence of nuclear material, so that his enemies like Iran would fear he was stronger than he actually was; Gadaffi was very different in that no one ever doubted that he fully and unambiguously surrendered his nuclear program. But we can take up this stuff at the sub-articles where we can discuss reliable sources that deal with these subjects.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I think Sec. Kerry has stated that the pending Iran deal is deliberately written in a way that does not bind the United States to any long-term commitment. If it had been written as a long-term commitment, then it would be a "treaty" requiring 2/3 approval from the Senate. This statement by Kerry seems similar to saying that the next administration can tear up the deal. Trump has already said he would honor the deal but find ways to enforce it very strictly. Sone other candidates have said they'd tear it up. HRC has said she wouldn't tear it up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Collinson, Stephen (June 15, 2015). "Hillary Clinton's real Libya problem". CNN. 
  2. ^ Friedman, Thomas L. (August 8, 2014). "Obama on the World". The New York Times. 
  3. ^ Robins-Early, Nick (March 7, 2015). "Was The 2011 Libya Intervention A Mistake?". Huffington Post. 
  4. ^ Kuperman, Alan J. (March–April 2015). "Obama's Libya Debacle". Foreign Affairs. 
  5. ^ Gillan, Joel (May 27, 2015). "Benghazi Won't Stick to Hillary Clinton, But the Disastrous Libyan Intervention Should". The New Republic. 
  6. ^ Chollet, Derek; Fishman, Ben (May–June 2015). "Who Lost Libya?". Foreign Affairs. 
  7. ^ Collinson, Stephen (June 15, 2015). "Hillary Clinton's real Libya problem". CNN. 
  8. ^ Robins-Early, Nick (March 7, 2015). "Was The 2011 Libya Intervention A Mistake?". Huffington Post. 
  9. ^ Kuperman, Alan J. (March–April 2015). "Obama's Libya Debacle". Foreign Affairs. 
  10. ^ Chollet, Derek; Fishman, Ben (May–June 2015). "Who Lost Libya?". Foreign Affairs. 

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.

Edit request.[edit]

Remove the second part of the sentence about Clinton's 2016 candidacy from the first paragraph of her page. This has been removed from other candidacy pages, and Clinton is not a special snowflake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@74.107.74.186: This is done. Mention of 2008 & '16 removed, and lead paragraph reworked for neutrality. I'll tackle the rest soon.   Spartan7W §   13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"... has come under heavy criticism for the activities of the Clinton Foundation ..."[edit]

Shouldn't be in intro if this is extrapolating content not actually in the article. I'd avoid qualifiers like "heavy" in the intro too, unless there is quasi unanimity in reliable sources this is the right qualifier (and supported with refs in the body of the article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox heading[edit]

There was recently a long discussion (from June to August) now at: Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 26#Infobox heading survey

The close of this discussion was presented as follows:

No consensus. I'm closing this per a request at WP:AN. There are about 20 people supporting "HC" and about 15 supporting "HRC". Arguments for both versions are defensible in the light of applicable policy, so it's not for me to say who has the stronger arguments. That means we have a majority for "HC", but not consensus, but even less of a consensus to change the current (as of this writing) status of "HC".  Sandstein  06:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Within the context of the statement "..even less of a consensus to change the current (as of this writing) status of "HC"." The infobox title was changed in just a few hours of the close here by BD2412 on the justification, "The discussion on the name to appear in the infobox has been closed as "No consensus"; per WP:NO CONSENSUS, this requires reversion to the status quo ante."

I am not convinced that this was the intention of the close or that a revert was appropriate in the context that, with the article title changing, the goal posts had effectively shifted.

GregKaye 11:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Already discussed, see Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 27#Infobox title (which includes a link to an ANI clarificaation by Sandstein). Propose snow close: WP:CCC unlikely for something that was agreed upon three weeks ago. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).