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.

POV[edit]

The article is written like a D-Party convention supplement. There is no objectivity. --Rogerfgay (talkcontribs) 13:49, 15 July 2016‎ (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist category[edit]

Why not categorize her as a conspiracy theorist? She explicitly states there is a Vast right-wing conspiracy. And she repeated the statement this year. This repeated assertion, by Clinton and others, is a defining characteristic of her. – S. Rich (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC) 21:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Was she being sarcastic the whole time? In fairness to her, I think she was. But what do reliable third-party sources suggest? It may be possible to retrieve them on Newspapers.com.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Srich, if you tell me there's a zoo does that make you an animial? You are mixing 2 meanings of conspiracy and she doesn't have a theory. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if she was serious about the conspiracy theory, it does not make her a "conspiracy theorist". Category:Conspiracy theorists says not to include anyone unless they engage in one of the theories listed on Category:Conspiracy theories, and VRWC isn't there. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, we have a definition for conspiracy theorist here and she doesn't seem to fit. That is beside the point anyway unless we have some RS that even identifies her with conspiracy theories at all.--Adam in MO Talk 23:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's thoughts about the vast right wing conspiracy comport with the 4 Young characteristics listed at Conspiracy theory#Conspiracy vs. conspiracy theory. So until her thoughts are proven correct, she is simply theorizing – which puts her into the definition. – S. Rich (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Srich, that's not the English meaning of "theorizing". SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
If we were defining the term that broadly, every person in Category:United States Attorneys would need to be called a conspiracy theorist, as every one of them brings conspiracy charges against criminal defendants from time to time. bd2412 T 19:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu:, but the VRWC is listed in Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States. @BD2412:, please, there is some nuisance in these categorizations; criminal investigators and prosecutors are looking for "real" conspiracies. (They don't bring their allegations to court unless they have enough proof/evidence to present to a jury.) The VRWC promoted by Clinton was imaginary – she was pushing back with pure allegation (lacking any proof) during the Lewinsky affair. – S. Rich (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, it is in a subcategory of that main category. That being said, I don't believe that category is appropriate for Hillary. When's the last time she referenced the VRWC? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Feb. 3, 2016. – S. Rich (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This source also quotes the subject explaining that it's not a "conspiracy" because it's "out in the open", referring to efforts by various wealthy people to support politicians whose policies favor wealthy people. This seems to cut against a proponent of this view being a conspiracy theorist. bd2412 T 20:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Then to paraphrase her, in the 90s she said "There is a VRWC (but I don't have proof)." And now she says "There is a VRWC (I have proof, but I won't talk about the proof I have because everybody knows I speak truly)." Either way she simply complains about the "conspiracy". Also, compare, she receives support from many wealty persons and wealthy celebrities. Are these people part of the "Vast left-wing conspiracy"? – S. Rich (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Your paraphrasing does not line up with the contents of the cited article. Can you find a reliable source that contains such content? bd2412 T 21:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
A conspiracy theory is not just a theory that there is a conspiracy. It is, roughly, is a tinfoil hat fringe belief that the official public version of something is a lie perpetrated by people with bad motivations, in circumstance where that would be wildly improbable or implausible. A conspiracy theorist is not just everybody who believes in a conspiracy theory, but somebody who invents, advances, follows, or promotes one or more conspiracy theories in a big way. By that definition, the notion that American right wing political operatives were coordinating to undermine Bill Clinton is not a conspiracy theory, nor is everybody who believes that there are right wing or left wing conspiracies a conspiracy theorist. If we expanded the definition much beyond that it would be meaningless, and therefore of undue weight and a possible BLP violation to attach to Clinton. That Clinton does not belong in the set of conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia seems pretty obvious. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect. Conspiracy theory WP:RS does not have any confinement to fringe beliefs. Your logic says "Unless the particular 'conspiracy' is obviously fringe it should not be classified as a 'conspiracy theory'. But it is permissible to allege conspiracy (without evidence or proof) in all other cases." Per our lede in Conspiracy theory Clinton has offered an "explanatory or speculative hypothesis suggesting that ... persons, or an organization, have conspired to cause ... through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation typically regarded as ... harmful." – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, if it's not fringe it is not a conspiracy theory. The lede to that article is wrong, and is not binding on us here or anywhere else. For what it's worth this is a featured article, that one is C-class. Incidentally, RS is not a standard for defining words or categories. But, again, if any allegation of a conspiracy were enough to make somebody a conspiracy theorist, then it would be an inappropriate category to add here and probably anywhere else even if true. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
You are adding a non-sourced qualification to the CT parameters. (Do you mean to say "if someone says there is any sort of conspiracy out there, they are a conspiracy theorist only if it is about something wacky. But if someone (Hillary) says 'there is a VWRC' against me and my husband" it does not fall within the wacky parameter.) Well, we have RS from a CBS News affiliated TV station that describes Clinton as a "conspiracy theorist". See: Chance, Seales (August 14, 2016). "Hillary Clinton's affinity for conspiracy theories". WIAT.com. Birmingham, AL: LIN Television Corp. (Media General). ... Clinton holds an affinity for conspiracy theories little known to the American public. S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Since when is CBS network affiliation a standard of journalism? Srich if your claims were true, you'd be able to cite at least 200 such references. Otherwise you have a fringe theory about a conspiracy theory which sounds a tad too theory. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I mention the affiliation simply to show this is RS. Is it okay for Clinton to tout a conspiracy theory (see: Grant, Philippe R. (2003). Knight, Peter, ed. Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 177. ISBN 978-1576078129. Concerned by the many conspiracy theories involving her husband, [she] claimed ... there was a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' to undermine their credibility. ) and not be categorized as a conspiracy theorist herself? – S. Rich (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Clinton's own long-time confidant Sidney Blumenthal used the term "conspiracy theory" in his book The Clinton Wars citing writers from Newsweek. (See my latest edit.) Come on. Since she has expounded a conspiracy theory (per RS), she should be categorized as a conspiracy theorist. – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Blumthal's book again. He does not call it a conspiracy theory but says that Isikoff and Thomas called it that. It does not meet rs because there are no expert sources to say it is a conspiracy theory and it is not consistent with the standard definition. Just to be clear, an allegation of a conspiracy is not a conspiracy theory. Saying for example that the 9/11 attacks were part of a conspiracy by al Qaeda is not a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Content

I reverted this edit[1] attempting to claim that Clinton was supporting a conspiracy theory by claiming that her husband was the subject of a right-wing conspiracy, both: (1) on BLP grounds as that imply to a typical reader that Clinton was engaging in fringe behavior, and (2) as a discretionary matter, because calling political accusations conspiracy theories is a poor way to describe them and a misuse of the term. The editor has since restored the disputed content.[2] I urge them to self-revert the disputed edit or for somebody else to remove this on BLP/BRD grounds pending any consensus to include. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

As I stated elsewhere, status as a CBS affiliate station in a local market does not on its face make the broadcast news an RS for the assertion cited to it. RS relates to the content it supports, not the entity alone. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the analysis by Wikidemon and SPECIFICO and have removed this (awkwardly written, needlessly contentious) material. Neutralitytalk 03:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

WRT the discussion above, should the article include the term "Conspiracy theory"? If the answer is yes, should the article be categorized in "Category:Conspiracy theorists"? – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not This appears to me an attempt to discredit the subject of the article entirely based on her comments about the right wing attacks on her she's endured for 25 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Snow close please. RfCs are supposed to be for significant content issues on which there is bona fide disagreement that could benefit from meaningful input from the wider community. They shouldn't be the first resort of a single editor who fails to gain any traction on an odd issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Agreed. This editor seems to be alone out on a limb on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Possibly. What do reliable third-party sources say?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • See:
Blumenthal, Sidney (2003). The Clinton Wars. MacMillian. p. 375. ISBN 9780374125028. Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas...compared Hillary's charge to McCarthyism. '...Clinton's conspiracy theory has a familiar echo....' [quoting "Monica Isn't the First Skirmish", Newsweek, February 29, 1998.] 
Grant, Philippe R. (2003). Knight, Peter, ed. Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 177. ISBN 978-1576078129. Concerned by the many conspiracy theories involving her husband, [she] claimed ... there was a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' to undermine their credibility. 
Chance, Seales (August 14, 2016). "Hillary Clinton's affinity for conspiracy theories". WIAT.com. Birmingham, AL: LIN Television Corp. (Media General). ... Clinton holds an affinity for conspiracy theories little known to the American public. 
S. Rich (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The question asked for Reliable sources, not what the cat dragged in. We've already rejected those above. For an extraordinary claim, you must provide unimpeachable sources, and them ain't those. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Click the links and read about the sources. Moreover, nobody rejected Clinton's confidant (Blumenthal) or Newsweek as RS! – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:IDHT - Blumethal is rejected several inches above. Your "nobody" is TFD. SPECIFICO talk 03:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No. I saw the RfC notice, and that is what brought me here. No, absolutely not. I cannot imagine a more POV violation of the BLP policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No "WRT the discussion above" it's clear that this has no support and in my opinion the ongoing passive-aggressive insertion of anti-Clinton smears on several WP pages should be put to a swift halt before it appears to be standard operating procedure here. Why is this permitted to continue? You'd almost think it's a conspiracy. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • NOPE per everyone else. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No – These discussions are starting to not only become tedious, but rather petty. —MelbourneStartalk 03:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Absolutely ridiculous. Neutralitytalk 04:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes to the first question and No opinion to the second. Asking more than one question in an RFC is always perilous because it essentially requires two vote tallies; if people only !vote once, it's often impossible to figure out whether they were only !voting on the question they read last, or !voting on both questions at once. Anyway, Wikipedia has an article titled Vast right-wing conspiracy, which documents that the subject has continued to use this description long after the 1990s. That Wikipedia article is categorized under Category:Conspiracy theories. All of that being so, it seems kind of weird to ban the term "conspiracy theory" from this BLP. So I !vote against banning that term from this BLP. I offer no opinion about the other question, regarding whether a corresponding category should be added at the bottom of this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes In her own words she believes in a conspiracy theory that she calls a "vast right wing conspiracy". Add the category. TweedVest (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No There are no reliable sources and it does not meet the criteria of a conspiracy theory. Note that Bill Clinton had actual right-wing political opponents who collected evidence of criminality against him and actually impeached him in the House of Representatives, although he was acquitted. TFD (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
According to reliable sources, prominent commentators referred to Clinton's discussion of a vast right-wing conspiracy as a"conspiracy theory".[3] I think it would be kind of silly for an RFC (like this one) to decide that this BLP shall not say, for example, that Evan Thomas called her accusation a "conspiracy theory". That's a very very different issue from the question about categories, which is why I answered the two questions differently.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you tell me the publication and date where these commentators said that? TFD (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
User:The Four Deuces, "Hillary Clinton's conspiracy theory has a familiar echo...." Isikoff, Michael and Thomas, Evan. "Monica Isn't the First Skirmish", Newsweek (February 29, 1998).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment by OPMerriam Webster says a conspiracy theorist is "a person who holds a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups <Conspiracy theorists believe the government is hiding evidence of UFOs.>" and a conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups". (Neither of these definitions contain any hint that the terms are derogatory.) So, wasn't Hillary Clinton explaining on TV that the right wing were conspiring against her and her husband? Without quibbling over whether she was propounding a "theory", she was presenting her allegation without any proof. I encourage editors to look at the definitions, and at the RS (Blumenthal and Newsweek) and accept the fact that she was presenting a conspiracy theory to explain the attacks. Also, we should keep in mind our cornerstone policy of WP:NOTCENSORED even when the WP:NOTEWORTHY material is offensive to our personal beliefs and politics. At least, !voters, providing some analysis to back up the opinions would be helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
It's almost always pejorative. Neutral and reliable sources rarely say, for example, that prosecutors are "conspiracy theorists" just because they are prosecuting a criminal conspiracy. At the same time, it's undeniable that there are very notable commentators who have called Clinton a conspiracy theorist, and they meant it in a pejorative way. I don't think this BLP should excise all such characterizations, but the BLP should also not side with them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You need to refer to an expert source on the subject. We do not for example use the term "Holocaust conspiracy theory" to refer to Nazi crimes, we use it to describe their denial. A priori of course there is no distinction between the two positions, but a posteriori one is the offical version and the other is a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No that seems to be WP:POV pushing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • NO As mentioned above, that would be POV pushing. Iazyges (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No - This proposal is such a blatant POV push, I'd suggest we consider a temporary topic ban for the nom. NickCT (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No Categories are supposed to be about defining characteristics. This clearly would not be something that falls into that definition anymore than a category for women with a child named Chelsea. Ravensfire (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Snow close please - hard to see this as a good faithed proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't even see what a snow close would mean. Would it mean that no "conspiracy theorist" category can be added (which is fine), or would it also mean that this article cannot include quotes like this: "Hillary Clinton's conspiracy theory has a familiar echo...." Isikoff, Michael and Thomas, Evan. "Monica Isn't the First Skirmish", Newsweek (February 29, 1998)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Those would be inappropriate for the article too, although the close could be made without prejudice to suggesting that editors consider appropriate, reliably sourced content as they normally are. One problem here is that the proposing editor called a hasty RfC in an apparent editing huff immediately upon their content getting rejected. It's really not a good RfC, and wasting everybody's time here on a trivial suggestion. These sorts of content proposals should go through normal consensus process. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this precipitous and vacuous RfC feels like it was done in a WP:POINTy snit. I'm increasingly concerned that all the American Politics articles are going off the rails. I hope Admins will follow the lead of Arbcom and take a zero-tolerance stance on everything in the WP:TE bag of tricks. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no reason to think this particular one is tendentiousness or POV given the editor's history here, just bad form. However, people have gone trigger happy on the RfCs in the presidential election related articles I've seen, including editors who are repeatedly making POV content proposals. One solution might be to require any RfC on certain articles to be certified by an uninvolved admin, and would proceed only if viable and if other content options had been tried first. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Right, I did not mean to characterize OP, who has not previously been active in the election-related articles, however the RfC is at best disproportionately formal for so trivial a topic, and at worst does appear POINTy. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • RS provided by OP – Okay, let's consider what a true expert in the field wrote: Olmsted, Kathryn S. (2009). "Chapter 6: Trust No One: Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories from the 1970s to the 1990s". Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 202. ISBN 978-0195183535. OCLC 221960372. Hillary Clinton invoked a 'vast right-wing' conspiracy to explain the looming impeachment of her husband in 1998. . At the beginning of this chapter she mentions that Bill Clinton wanted Webster Hubbell to conduct Justice Department investigations regarding the JFK killing and on UFOs. (Olmsted is a Professor of History at UC Davis.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Significantly in her chapter about conspiracies and conspiracy theories, Olmsted does not call Clinton's claim a "conspiracy theory." Rather, she quotes another expert saying that conspiracy had become "the default assumption in an age which has learned to distrust everything and everyone." Much of the chapter explains how the revelation of actual conspiracies had heightened people's acceptance of conspiracy as an explanation which in turn made them more accepting of conspiracy theories. Whatever Webb Hubbell (of all people) said Bill Clinton asked him about the JFK murder and UFOs is irrelevant to this article. TFD (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am concerned that "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation, associated with tinfoil hat style conspiracies. Despite certain comments that the English words "conspiracy" and "theory" do not in themselves carry that meaning does not change the fact that the idiom "conspiracy theory" is typically associated with things that are not actually true, and often are rather ridiculous. In the case of Hillary Clinton, there actually have been various conspiracies, in the weakened sense that S. Rich wants us to think is relevant. Gasp! Shock! The political opponents of a politician are conspiring to defeat her in the upcoming election. Stop the presses! I think the suggestion that we call this a "conspiracy theory" is manifestly POV-pushing.
    This having been said, I do think that "vast right-wing conspiracy" belongs in the article, since it's probably one of her more famous catch-phrases, and I think the current article does a reasonable job of presenting that neutrally. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor restores misleading content on Keystone[edit]

In a first round of edits, the editor suggested that Clinton supported the Keystone Pipeline and cited a PolitFact article that found no evidence of a flip-flop. I reverted those edits. The editor has now returned and reinserted the suggestion that Clinton flip-flopped, opting not to cite the PolitiFact article showing that she did not. The editor now instead cites a short CNN article that plucks out a few quotes without any context (PolitiFact goes through the and actually provides the context for them, and finds that they are not evidence of Keystone support). Please revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the absence of PolitiFact makes the edit any less reliably sourced.CFredkin (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The CNN source that he cites just plucks out a quote without any context. The PolitiFact explains the context and finds that there was no flip-flop. So you have (i) one source that gives just a quote on Keystone without any context, and (ii) you have another source that extensively goes through Clinton's history of Keystone statements, context and all (including the quote in question) with the specific intention to examine whether she flipped or not. Which source do you use?Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Can we add the PolitiFact verdict?CFredkin (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Her whole position on Keystone should just read "in September 2015, Clinton announced her opposition to the Keystone pipeline." The rest is just trivial contextfree minutiae that tries to imply that she flip-flopped when the PolitiFact is clear in that she did not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Since it is contentious whether Clinton ever said she supported the pipeline, we should not imply she changed her position. TFD (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't her statements speak for themselves? If commentary about or framing her statements is not supported by reliable sources, then it should be removed or reworded.CFredkin (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
As the PolitiFact piece makes clear, the statement doesn't speak for itself. Context, which the paragraph on Keystone in the article lacks, is needed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Snooganssnoogans. You are reading Clinton's comments in the light of what you think about her. She has always supported the pipeline and will allow it to be built after the election, but said she opposed it to win the primaries. But if you take her words at face value, she never expressed an opinion until she came out against it. Whether or not we should read them that way is a matter of judgment which we would need reliable sources in order to report. TFD (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
You are a mind reader with a WP:CRYSTALBALL, then? bd2412 T 19:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
One does not need to be a mind reader in order to make understand the position of other editors. BTW could you please not link to policies that had absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about. If you have an argument then make it. TFD (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Guessing what someone will do in the future, in contravention to their stated position, is the essence of WP:CRYSTAL. bd2412 T 02:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You are wrong. WP:CRYSTAL is about inserting original research predicting the future into articles, not about talk page discussions. In any case, I was not speculating about the future, merely outlining the view that I assume the editor to whom I replied holds, that Clinton will allow the TPPpipeline to be built. We are by the away allowed to provide opinions from outside sources that speak of future events. For example we are allowed to mention the November election in this article even though it has not happened yet because reliable sources say that it will occur. TFD (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Allow the TPP to be built? bd2412 T 03:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I meant the pipeline. TFD (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016[edit]

Time to change the 2009 image in to the campaign image!!!!!!!


99.6.38.229 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Which image would you like to replace it? Topher385 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

New photo in the infobox[edit]

Have you considered putting up a more recent photo of her in the infobox? The current one is from 2009, that's 7 years away.Ernio48 (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ernio48: Please refer to "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" near the top of this page, question 3. —MelbourneStartalk 11:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Drew[edit]

this has gone on long enough and will not result in any productive article edits

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.

We now have three reliable sources document that Dr Drew Pinsky has serious concerns about Clinton's brain health Yahoo! News, Fox News, and the Washington Times: [4] [5] [6].

Dr Drew is a board certified doctor. Also Hillary publicly released her medical records, so expert commentary on them is not a BLP violation. Should we have a sentence mentioning this in the article? We have three mainstream RS. TweedVest (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You've been warned multiple times by multiple editors about BLP and reliable sources. This section will likely be deleted, but for now not by me. Please cut it out at once, and if you intend to edit politics-related articles find something constructive to do. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
You brought this up yesterday, didn't you? I seem to recall that several people pointed out that it is unethical for a physician to comment on the health status of someone they haven't actually examined. But that discussion seems to have disappeared. Anyhow, this is still not suitable for the article. The Washington Times is not a reliable source by any means. Fox News is also not reliable when it comes to this subject (Fox's Sean Hannity, an enthusiastic Trump supporter, spent a whole week promoting "debunked conspiracy theories" about Hillary's health [7]). The "Yahoo" link is actually from The Wrap, an "entertainment news" site - again, not a reliable source. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I assume my response to you yesterday was archived. Nothing about it has changed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu, maybe you could repeat what you said rather than making people go hunting for it? --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Since I don't like giving more attention to #HealthTruthers than is necessary, how about I meet you halfway? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree 100% of course. Tvoz/talk 17:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Here are some additional sources: Huffington Post, OregonLive, a different article on Yahoo! News, and KDVR. (Redacted) Shouldn't we, based on these articles, have a section on her current health issues? TweedVest (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
According to that KDVR article, 59% of Americans want HRC's full medical records to be released. Mention in article? TweedVest (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
LOL! Did you actually read the sources you proposed here? Huffpost says "Dr. Drew’s comments about Hillary Clinton are all kinds of wrong." The Oregonian article quotes the debunking from Snopes. The Yahoo! article says "Astonishingly, the “records” Dr. Pinsky chose to comment on have been making the rounds for months and have been proved to be fake." And KDVR is Fox, which we have already indicated is not a reliable source on this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
And another source, Politico: [8]. I never said that Dr. Drew's opinion should be given in Wikipedia's voice, just asked if his opinion should be mentioned in the article. By the way, someone named "NeilN" just said that your warning on my talk page was by you as an admin. If you're an uninvolved admin with this article, why are you giving opinions on article content proposals? Is that in line with WP's admin behavioral guidelines? TweedVest (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
As I responded to your question on your talk page, I am an involved admin at this article. I do not take admin actions here, except to issue warnings when they are called for. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If you're an involved editor, that means you have opinions on article content, which means you're not an objective agent when it comes to who should and who should not be given warnings on article content ideas. If you tried to pull this kind of thing in a university debate class, what grade do you think the professor would give you, assuming he wasn't in the same political party as you? TweedVest (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This isn't university debate class, this is Wikipedia where anyone can give appropriate warnings to other editors. --NeilN talk to me 05:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, NeilN, and Melanie. Bd2412 below just clearly violated WP:BLP. So, if I look at his talk page, I'm going to see Melanie giving him a formal warning and Neil giving him a preventative block? Otherwise, the takeaway here is that WP's admins are either: (1) corrupt (2) incompetent, (3) biased, or (4) inconsistent. Which is it? TweedVest (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The answer is... see tendentious editing which fails the expected standards of behaviour on this page. You're quickly approaching the point where a block will be necessary to minimize disruption. --NeilN talk to me 06:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Disruption? Wasn't the WP article talk page developed precisely for the purpose of discussing controversial opinions prior to putting in "main space." I haven't personally insulted anyone here. The ACLU has noted that claims of "disruption" are often defenses of censorship. Do you disagree with the ACLU? I'm surprised to see fascism in WP. TweedVest (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to say this simply. WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Attempt to introduce unsourced or poorly contentious information on a BLP anywhere on Wikipedia and you will be blocked. --NeilN talk to me 06:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess fortunately for me the liberal Huffington Post covered Dr. Drew's comments or I would have been blocked by the "uninvolved" NeiLN. Again, Clinton publicly released her medial records. A non-partisan person, Dr. Drew, reviewed them and gave his expert opinion. His opinion is contrary to an "uninvolved" admins' (NeilN and Melanie) opinion, so they threaten block of newbies who bring it up here. Is WO really an neutral 'pedia? TweedVest (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Cute. I warned you and am warning you because of the text you wrote which I redacted up above. And for a "newbie", you're awfully adept at using Wikipedia lingo. --NeilN talk to me 06:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Drew Pinsky's publicity agency. bd2412 T 04:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If you're suggesting that Drew Pinsky has ulterior motives for his publicly commenting on Clinton's health and treatment, then aren't you, bd2412, violating WP:BLP if you don't have a reliable source to back up your claim? TweedVest (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2016 (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.

Hillary Clinton was not the first woman ever nominated by a major party for the presidency.[edit]

Although the article sais: 'No woman had ever been nominated by a major party for the presidency.' It is not true. The first women ever nominated was Margaret Chase Smith (GOP) in 1964, and four years later the Democratic Party nominated Shirley Chrisholm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XuanSextilis (talkcontribs) 20:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those candidates were the "nominee". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree. They were candidates, but they were not "nominated by the party". --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Email controversy[edit]

Missing from the email controversy section is any mention of whether or not her private server used encryption as I presume that a government server would have. And, whether or not she used S/MIME encryption to send State Dept. business emails.

I noticed that the section mentions concerns about her sending (business) emails while in foreign countries. The question of encryption is quite relevant here since I, as a person with some qualifications in the field, don't think that it would make much difference what server was ultimately receiving the email, but rather what would matter would be if it was 1024 bit RSA encrypted.

All news stories appear to leave out this important information. I do not know where you would look for this information. However, I feel that it should be included if it is possible to obtain it.

Tyrerj (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Main article: Hillary Clinton email controversy, linked at the top of the section, is the full coverage for the email controversy. The image presented on this page should be limited to the most basic details, while the spinoff page can cover it more fully. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)