Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Hillary Clinton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

This page should include a "Scandals and controversies" paragraph

This is not an attempt to smear Hillary Clinton or introduce POW revisions. At all. However it is an attempt to make this page less of what I am forced to perceive as a sales pitch for HRC and more of a neutral biography - which I must point out, I cannnot consider it now.

Specifically im dumbfounded and completely at a loss as to why the authors have found it prudent and correct to establish a paragraph with "Awards and honors" But choosing NOT to include a paragraph called "Scandals and controversies" or something in that vein.

It seems to me to be a deliberate act to downplay parts of her history that are less flattering while pushing to the front the more glorious parts of her history.

In this the whole article is cast into doubt and is borderline propaganda, or at least very rigid in its positive interpretations. Wikipedia should not take sides - but a choice to OMIT or downplay something is a conscious act that reflects back upon both the author and the article in question. Its possible that most of the scandals can be found - but they have been buried across wikipedia articles that makes it almost impossible to get the full picture: If one were a conspirational type, then this would seem to be a very elegant but not very ethical way to presents SOME facts while obscuring others. In other words hide things in plain sight.

What I specifically miss are amongst other things are: The fact the she openly lied about having landed in Bosnia under sniper fire - probably in an attempt to win foreign policy points. The aftermath of the Whitewater scandal where her husband pardoned 4 of the implicated persons, which some have claimed was a way to shut them up about both the Clintons roles in the scandal. The China connection - which is particularly interesting considering she is the present foreign minister of USA. Suspicion of illegal campaign contributions during her failed bid for the presidency. The way which she as first lady used the presidential ressources of her husband. The strange events of Vince Fosters death.

AND NOT AT LEAST The scandal around Peter Paul..

The list just goes on and on ...

The point here being that if her biography should include "Awards and honors" then it should also in the interest of unbiased wholeness include a similar pargraph with allegations and scandals - very much in thread with other similar documents and biographies. Also I believe it would be a good time now, where changes could not be considered an attempt at political machinations. Nick-bang (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

First, separate "Controversies" sections or subarticles are a bad practice. All supposedly controversial material should be included in the normal biographical sections they occur in. Doing this gives them proper biographical context and weighting, and is what every real biography (book) does. Having separate "controversies" or "criticisms" or "scandals" sections or subarticles is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Yes, you will sometimes see them in WP biographies, but they are still a bad idea, and you won't see them in an GA or FA level article. In particular, a special effort was undertaken to rid all eighteen or so 2008 presidential candidates' biographical articles of such treatment — see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1#Status of "controversies" pages — and that was done for Hillary, McCain, Giuliani, and all the others.

Second, the "Awards and honors" section in this article is all of one sentence long. It then links to the Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors subarticle, which lists out a lot of awards, honorary degrees, and the like. This is standard material that is included in biographies – see this search result for examples of such sections in the BLPs of politicians, sports starts, entertainers and the like – but in Hillary's case there are too many of them, so they are split out into a separate subarticle. See Category:Lists of awards by award winner for other examples of 'awards and honors' subarticles. By the way, this main article also cannot list out all the books written about Hillary (most of which are negative towards her, as it happens), so those are in the List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton subarticle, and linked to from a brief "Further reading" section in main article. Same idea. Will post responses to your list of things "missing" next. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Now to your specific list:

Bosnia sniper fire. Included in this article: "Clinton's admission in late March, that her repeated campaign statements about having been under hostile fire from snipers during a 1996 visit to U.S. troops at Tuzla Air Base in Bosnia-Herzegovina were not true, attracted considerable media attention and risked undermining both her credibility and her claims of foreign policy expertise as First Lady.[266]" Also dealt with at more length in Hillary Clinton caucuses and primaries, 2008#Comments about 1996 Bosnia trip.
Bill Clinton's pardons of Whitewater figures. Belongs in article about Bill Clinton, not Hillary. Hillary's role in Whitewater has a full paragraph in the easy-to-find "Whitewater and other investigations" section. Her actions are also dealt with in a number of places within the Whitewater controversy article.
The China connection. What did the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy ("Chinagate") have to do with Hillary? Belongs in articles about Bill, the 1996 campaign, etc. Regarding China and her being Secretary of State, how has she behaved differently towards China than every recent Secretary of State before her? Do you have any reliable, mainstream sources that link the 1996 Chinagate affair to anything she is doing as Sec State?
Suspicion of illegal campaign contributions during her failed bid for the presidency. What suspicions? There was the Norman Hsu affair, which is covered extensively in Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008#Campaign finance irregularities. But at the end of the day, the Clinton campaign returned or donated all the money, no FEC charges were ever made against Clinton as a result of this or other campaign funding issues, and this was not a factor in why she ultimately lost, so the main article (which only includes about 1/20 of the material in the Category:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 subarticles) doesn't mention it.
The way which she as first lady used the presidential resources of her husband. Meaning what? Sources?
Vince Foster's death. Included in this article: "Following deputy White House counsel Vince Foster's July 1993 suicide, allegations were made that Hillary Clinton had ordered the removal of potentially damaging files (related to Whitewater or other matters) from Foster's office on the night of his death.[171] Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigated this, and by 1999, Starr was reported to be holding the investigation open, despite his staff having told him there was no case to be made.[172] When Starr's successor Robert Ray issued his final Whitewater reports in 2000, no claims were made against Hillary Clinton regarding this.[166]" Now if you mean the crazy conspiracy theories about his death and her role in it, those are limited to the Death of Vince Foster article.
Peter Paul. Covered in United States Senate election in New York, 2000#Hollywood fundraiser. Doesn't belong in this main article, because his case against her was summarily thrown out of the courts for lack of evidence. There's no there there.

If you have other "missing" items you wish to discuss, please list them as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be spreading like wildfire, so lets both try to contain this discussion to a calm and academic level - taht actually has meaning to us both as well as the readers of Wikipedia.

Now for your arguments:

1) "Bosnia sniper fire." Included a lot of places yes - but was and is relevant for this article as well in context with her running for precidency against Obama, as one of her primary electoral platforms was her alleged experience with foreign relations (implied as opposed to Obama). Hence the validity of naming it en passant here.

The text I quoted is in this article! Bring up Hillary Rodham Clinton and search for "Bosnia". I really don't understand what you're arguing here.

2) "Bill Clinton's pardons of Whitewater figures." Relevant for Hillary as she was at least as prominent if not more in the allegations as Bill Clinton. The point here being that I DO NOT feel its strange that you split the facts over several articles, but rather that there is no real coherence in the articles between the different scandals she was involved in and her biography - something I find curious.

Sources for Hillary being "at least as prominent if not more in the allegations"?

3) "The China connection" I was in fact refering to the position that claimed that her and her husbands greatest foreign policy blunder was to shift focus towards China at the expence of India, Brazil and Russia. Furthermore that as a direct expression of that, that the transferral of the Panama Canal to Panama in accordance with the Torrijos–Carter Treaties was a major mistake as the canal zone effectively later opened up to chinese interests. Also along these lines the massive influx of technology (including military) to China during the Cliinto administration.

Sources for her role in the administration's alleged blunder about a China shift?

4)"Suspicion of illegal campaign contributions during her failed bid for the presidency" - your claim that it was irrelevant and that her campaign "returned or donated all the money", with all due respect makes no sense. Returning the money are a sign of them being circumspect. And at any rate then it should be up to the Wikipedia readers and not you to judge wheter it was interesting in that context.

It is in Wikipedia, it's just that this article is under space constraints and at the end of the day there are more important things to cover about her campaign.

5) "The way which she as first lady used the presidential resources of her husband. Meaning what? Sources?" Meaning Filegate, travelgate etc. all well-documented, but only mentioned briefly.

Travelgate gets a full summary, not a brief mention, in this article: "Scrutiny of the May 1993 firings of the White House Travel Office employees, an affair that became known as "Travelgate", began with charges that the White House had used audited financial irregularities in the Travel Office operation as an excuse to replace the staff with friends from Arkansas.[167] The 1996 discovery of a two-year-old White House memo caused the investigation to focus more on whether Hillary Clinton had orchestrated the firings and whether the statements she made to investigators about her role in the firings were true.[168][169] The 2000 final Independent Counsel report concluded she was involved in the firings and that she had made "factually false" statements, but that there was insufficient evidence that she knew the statements were false, or knew that her actions would lead to firings, to prosecute her.[170]" There's also a GA-level Travelgate article itself. Filegate also gets a decent summary: "An outgrowth of the Travelgate investigation was the June 1996 discovery of improper White House access to hundreds of FBI background reports on former Republican White House employees, an affair that some called "Filegate".[175] Accusations were made that Hillary Clinton had requested these files and that she had recommended hiring an unqualified individual to head the White House Security Office.[176] The 2000 final Independent Counsel report found no substantial or credible evidence that Hillary Clinton had any role or showed any misconduct in the matter.[175]" And again, there's a Filegate article too.

6)"Vince Foster's death" Fair enough - I see your point.

7)"Peter Paul. Covered in United States Senate election in New York, 2000#Hollywood fundraiser" Yes indeed - but why in such an obscure article and not here? " Doesn't belong in this main article, because his case against her was summarily thrown out of the courts for lack of evidence." WHAT ...??? In Wikipedia it clearly states that "On January 5, 2006 it was reported that Clinton's campaign group agreed to pay a $35,000 fine related to the underreporting of the fundraiser's expenses." Your are refering to the civilsuit which followed and which is not quite dead yet (but close): "Most but not all of the charges against President Clinton have also been dismissed by the court, on procedural grounds."Nick-bang (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The charges against Hillary were thrown out. This is not an article about Bill! And I hope United States Senate election in New York, 2000 isn't an obscure article; it's one of the most historic and dramatic Senate races in American history, and also has earned the GA level. As for the $35K fine, that's a relatively small amount and given the complexities of the U.S. campaign finance laws, campaigns often end up with fines like that. Worth noting in that article, not worth noting here. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just a temporary reply, to say that I have read all your arguments and will reply when I have timeNick-bang (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Why no coverage of Clinton ordering diplomats to spy on UN leaders

why isn't there a reference about the content of the wikileaks cables? hillary clinton ordered us diplomats to spy on un leaders... wikipedia should not censor that!

217.162.118.56 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC) aye

The Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State subarticle has a long paragraph on this, but I've been reluctant to include it here in the main article until more is known. For instance, it has now been reported that the CIA was behind at least some of the requests, and it still isn't clear whether Hillary even saw the cables before they went out (in general practice the Sec State doesn't see all the cables that go out under the Sec State name), and it isn't clear whether any U.S. diplomats paid attention or just ignored them. The subarticle covers all these uncertainties. But I guess there's been enough attention to this matter that it warrants a brief mention in the main article too, and so I've added it. If something more definitive arises subsequently, I'll update that. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

perfect, thank you for your extremely quick answer! (aye) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.118.56 (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect for your arguments as well as for your position, then I must say that his whole page in my opinion paints a very pretty picture of Hillary Clinton in general and regarding the numerous scandals surrounding her in particular. Regarding this specifically ("Why no coverage of Clinton ordering diplomats to spy on UN leaders"), then nobody is asking to have her tried and condemned. However when having a whole paragraph describing Awards and honors, then to just keep some semblance of Neutrality, a similar paragraph could and should be made about accusations and allegations. And what seems as a deliberate attempt or at least negligence on her her part should be included - while underscoring that its unresolved. Nick-bang (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Nick-bang (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State has a fuller discussion of the humint cables matter. But there hasn't been any new reporting on it in the last week that I've seen, so it doesn't seem to be becoming a major issue. The one sentence that the main article has now: "A few of the cables released by WikiLeaks revealed that directions to members of the foreign service had gone out in 2009 under Clinton's name to gather biometric and other personal details on foreign diplomats, including officials of the United Nations and U.S. allies.[302]" seems sufficient to me for now. And I don't see how the humint cables episode reflects "a deliberate attempt or negligence on her part" ... we still don't know if the cables were a deliberate action by her or if the CIA wrote all of them and they went out under her name without her realizing it or reading them; and if anything, the humint directives were an overaggressive attempt at intelligence gathering, not an example of negligence. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed - but the point I am trying to make, is that it seems to dilute the picture by placing facts outside the main article. Wheter or not it will a BIGGER issue than it already is, should hardly be the point as it has clear relevance for her present position as Secretary of State. Also considering the present polemic debate and general turmoil around Wikileaks in general and Julian Assange in particular, then I agree that Wikipedia should not replace facts with speculation before further leaks have been made. Howver using the phrase "under Clinton's name" seems borderline POV as you imply that she had no actual knowledge of the fact or indeed were NOT deliberately negligent - which would make her NOT deliberate negligent? NOT reading policymaking mails at least qualifies her for the latter category...unless your position "if anything, the humint directives were an overaggressive attempt at intelligence gathering" were a case of CIA deliberately hidng behind and lying to the serving US Secretary of State. Hence I am forced to reflect upon why you again choose the most benificial interpretation of the facts - seen from the perspective of Hillary Clinton? Nick-bang (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the acronym you're looking for is "POV", not "POW". The latter means Hanoi Hilton and the like! Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

An obvious typo that have been corrected now - hardly interesting or relevant in the context of what was discussed I think...Nick-bang (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason the article just says the cables went out under her name is because the account in The Guardian that this is based upon says "A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009 ..." They are being careful with their wording, so we are too. This National Journal story (used as a cite in the subarticle) explores why it's possible she didn't see the cables. And there is no source that I've seen that establishes for certain that she ever saw the cables. That's why the wording is what it is. As for whether she's negligent if that is the case, that's ultimately for the reader to decide. As for whether the CIA was "using" the State Department, yes, that's happened before and will happen again. If Clinton has taken internal action towards the CIA as part of the fallout from this, that would be worthwhile including, but I haven't seen anything about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I can acquiesce to the point about her possibly being tacitly used by the CIA - however I strongly object to your claim that this somehow should be an everyday ocurrence, and I would very much like to see any documents, facts and/or articles pointing to that rather stark conclusion that you may possess or can direct me to. To send a policymaking memo in her name denies her of any credible deniablity, and so from a strictly legal perspective she is responsible if not guilty. How she chooses to relegated the actual blame - if that is possible - remains to be seen. But you extrapolate a lot from a single sources. And it stands unopposed, which is a problem.

You cannot interject your own thoughts into a stream of what is claimed to be neutral third-party fact. The neutrality of which I by the way dispute! A more correct form would be to say that there are 2 positions, describing them both and leaving it to the readers to decide which arguments makes the most sense. Especially as the matter has yet to be resolved fully. This was actually the way we solved the discussion around the article on the Finnish winter war. A biography is not an universally objective and neutral document, but rather an interpretation of somebodys life where every choice has a consequence. Nick-bang (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not injecting anything; none of what I'm talking about here is in the article. The actual article text is: "A few of the cables released by WikiLeaks revealed that directions to members of the foreign service had gone out in 2009 under Clinton's name to gather biometric and other personal details on foreign diplomats, including officials of the United Nations and U.S. allies.[302]" That is simple and factual, and a straight paraphrase of what The Guardian and the other newspaper accounts wrote. Please point to some reliable, mainstream sources (not opinion blogs) that say there are "two positions" or "two arguments" here. What are they? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"and a straight paraphrase of what The Guardian and the other newspaper accounts wrote" ... WHAT other newspapers to be exact ? As I have pointed out a few times now, but which you seem unwilling to grasp is that you base your points on ONE arricle - but want ME to produce "some" sources. Furthermore you seem to get inordinately agitated by what was on the outset a simple discussion on academic veracity. A reaction which seem inordinate to what was actually said. Unless the fact that I raise a question to HRC´s Biogrpahy to you seems like a personal attack?Nick-bang (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, don't worry, I'm not agitated, sorry if it came across that way. The other major sources I've seen on this are this New York Times story, which uses the phrasing "signed by Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Rodham Clinton" and "signed by Mrs. Clinton", and this Guardian follow-up, which talks about the CIA having written some of the cables, and this Los Angeles Times story, which uses the phrasing "The guidance was written by the CIA, the former official said, but was sent under Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's name because the CIA and other agencies cannot directly task State Department embassy personnel" and says that diplomats largely ignored the humint requests anyway. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay - interesting ... and also very complex legally. The question here is who is accountable to whom and for what. A very interesting discussion, but hardly one for an Wikipedia article. However as we have only seem a portion of what Wikileaks possess and have not seen Mrs. Clinton impeached (again) yet, then its all pretty much debateable. And THAT at least is what should be in the article - not a polemic attack on her as a person. (which was not what I asked for anyway). At any rate then in the articles you just quoted then there are substantial differences in interpretation.Nick-bang (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hillary was never impeached, Bill was. They are two different people, with very different personalities and temperaments. And there's no big debate to cover here – the humint cables have received relatively little press attention compared to the other aspects of the Wikileaks matter. Google News has only 50 hits in a search for 'hillary' 'humint', most of which just rehash the original story, while it has 30,000 hits in a more general search for 'wikileaks' 'cables'. Thus, for now, this article has a brief mention of it, while the Secretary of State subarticle has more. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, as it turns out, other editors started a dedicated article on part of this matter, Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats, and I've been updating it with material from the Sec State subarticle and some new stuff I found. So will have to look again at how to deal with this in the subarticle and here in the main article. For now, I've just added links to the new dedicated article. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded this main article a bit to include that the cables were question were written by the CIA and that her name being attached is systematically done to all cables. But Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats (which got on the main page as a WP:DYK) and Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State are still the places to go for the full story. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

FYI, there is currently a discussion at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard regarding whether or not the Palin articles should mention a particular film that includes pornographic portrayals of both Palin and Clinton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Shaking hands with Hugo Chavez

I was wondering if this could be included in the article given the strained relationship between the united states and Venezuela. [1] Truthsort (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's too minor for here (unless something further develops from it), but I've added it to the detail Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Major BLP issues: what Clinton would appear to be according to the Financial Action Task Force; need for TLC

With ref to UN spying/data protection issues apparently Article 2 of the 1973 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, ratified by the US in 1976, includes in its definition of such crimes an 'attack upon the person' of an internationally protected person.

The Financial Action Task Force, of which the United States is a member, is apparently an inter-governmental body whose purpose is to combat money laundering and, since October 2001, terrorist financing.

The FATF Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing define as a terrorist a person involved in terrorist acts, including acts which constitute an offence under the 1973 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents.

(Apparently a terrorist financing offence, including the financing of terrorists, extends to any person who provides or collects funds with the intention they should be used by a terrorist, so there may be some need for inclusion of this whole issue in a number of other articles also, I don't know).

Obviously some TLC may be required here, but may also be germane to terrorism rhetoric observable passim. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your additions to Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats. You are putting together this case regarding what HRC might be considered for having her name signed on those cables, based upon your chain of interpretation of some UN articles and agency charters. This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in large doses. You've got to find some reliable, mainstream, neutral, secondary news sources that puts them together in this way. Until then, no go. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

IPA Transcription of Hillary's name

The transcription of Rodham as /ˈrɒdəm/ is wrong; [r] (trilled) should be [ɹ], as in "hilarious", at least in North American English. ^[1] Anyone disagree? Ginohhh (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Gay-ubermensch, 19 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please upload this picture of Hillary to her page. http://rapidshare.com/files/443462060/Rodham_LIFE_Jun_20_1969.jpg The image was published in Live Magazine in 1969 and as such it could be used under fair-use status. It could be nice to have more naturally looking pictures of her, as the page now looks more like a campaign web page.

Gay-ubermensch (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Not done: Upload requests are handled at WP:Files for upload. However, the date of publication has nothing to do with fair use. Furthermore, we may never use a fair use image when there is a free equivalent, or a free equivalent can be obtained. So, this article already has a free equivalent; and, even if it didn't, it is always assumed possible to get a free equivalent of a living person, so we almost never use fair use photos of living people (and Clinton would not qualify for the special exceptions. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Predictions are hard...

This article is of less than 1% interest to me, for I pay little attention to politics, but to those who know the topic, shouldn't there be a section on how the department headed by this lady totally missed the 2011 unrest in Egypt etc. and only found out about it by reading the NY Times? As Yogi Berra said: "It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future." But to have the top job and miss that type of tidal wave must be some notable item to mention. History2007 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a biography of the "lady who heads the department" - her entire life and career - not about alleged errors or omissions by the department she currently heads. If reliable sourcing were to emerge to indicate that this matter has some lasting impact on her life or her career, perhaps it would make it into her bio, otherwise, I don't think so. Tvoz/talk 05:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No big deal for me anyway. But the perception has changed, in that these people used to be viewed as "in touch with world affairs" with all these 1,0000 world trips and all. Now if they have to read things in the newspapers, that modified perception about "what do they know anyway?" will linger on for long. But anyway, enough said. History2007 (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone totally missed Egypt. Everyone knows there is a groundswelling of popular unrest in many of the countries in that region, but for one to actually topple this government in that way, nobody expected that. It was one of those things that just started happening and then took on a life of its own. If Mubarak had responded tougher right from the start (as some other governments are doing now), maybe the whole thing would have stayed suppressed. If crowds hadn't showed up in large size for a night or two, maybe the whole thing would have fizzled out. Consider it a sort of political version of chaos theory ... The fall of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989 caught everyone by surprise as well. Conversely, the ability of the Chinese government to keep its hold on power through several decades of rapid economic change in the nation has also surprised a lot of people. Seeing the future is a tough business ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"enough said" -- More than enough said ... these comments simply aren't relevant to this article. -- 98.108.198.154 (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates

The large number of citation templates in the article are making it very slow to load, in case any of the regular editors are concerned about that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I and others are aware of it. Rewriting them all to be without the citation template would be a long, ugly, error-prone job unless there's a script or bot to do it. And the templates do give a uniform formatting experience. And it's not just the cites; there's a jillion of those succ and nav boxes at the bottom which pile up the time too. In the end, I think the best thing to do is nothing, and let performance improvements in the WikiMedia server, page generation, and caching mechanisms, as well as improvements in popular browsers and broadband connections, make the whole thing faster. Given that more and more computer applications are becoming browser-based, and given that WP has many such heavily-cited and -templated BLPs, such improvements should be happening all the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that will happen soon. We've had these speed issues with citation templates for years. I've gone through articles and removed them, and yes it's a horrible job, but there's a wonderful lightness of being afterwards, where the page loads quickly and people can read and edit it easily again. In the meantime, the next best thing is at least to make sure no more are added. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Porn video

What about her porn video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah from argentina (talk • contribs) 23:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Bitch

An article on Hillary without at least a mention of how many times she's been called 'bitch' under 'Cultural and Political Image' seems poorly researched and biased in favor of political correctness rather than reflective of national news coverage and her cultural and political image. Many, many sources abound. http://mediamatters.org/research/200703150011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/dana-milbank-suggests-hil_n_248889.html http://www.disinfo.com/2008/02/tina-fey-on-hillary-clinton-bitches-get-stuff-done/ http://newsflash.bigshotmag.com/big-shot-magazine/1045/ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=44551 http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200808270022 http://ace.mu.nu/archives/189657.php 4.5 million links including many public figures calling Hillary 'bitch'. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1109&bih=863&q=Hillary%20bitch&gbv=2&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw

1.5 million images of Hillary portrayed as a bitch. http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1109&bih=863&q=Hillary+bitch&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= Clearly, whether or not she is actually a bitch or not, it is part of her public image. Some discussion of the Obama campaign's utilization of this negative public image would be in order as well. Will I write it? Nope, I came in here looking for authoritative reference to Obama's campaign utilization of Hillary's bitch image, and although I'm sure I could write a solid piece, my work for the GOP would lead DNC folks to of a matter of course edit or delete it as opposed to someone with a more academic focus (any unbiased academician would have to admit that it is a definite part of her public image and as such should be addressed by an editor who would not be seen as biased.)

At bare minimum, the discussions of Hillary being portrayed as a bitch on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitch_%28insult%29#Modern_use page should be incorporated into the Hillary Clinton article under 'Cultural and Political Image', although I'd hope that a more rounded discussion of its relation to her will be developed. Perhaps portrayal/ties to feminism are in order too, to provide balance. 71.102.18.173 (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The section's discussion already covers many of the things the b-word is meant to represent: "gender reversal, radical feminist as emasculator, and the wife the husband wants to get rid of", "Harpy", "shrill and strident", etc, so I don't think there's any political correctness going on here. I'll look back through these academic sources to see if they discuss the word as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said before. Bare minimum, the McCain 'B' word controversy should be mentioned. Encyclopaediac doesn't mean bowdlerized. With several million Google hits, the word itself is part of her public image, not just elements of her character that the word suggests. So, I'll give the regular editors to the article a couple days to come up with something appropriate, and then I'll write my own element. Maybe even one with a subhead. As indicated, the PERFECT article would include Obama's capitalization upon her public image, but it should at least mention the McCain controversy (and Tina Fey's counter to the term) regarding notable attacks on her that were aired on major television networks with Penn Jillette's being the razor's edge of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.18.173 (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added this to the main article: "Use of the "bitch" epithet, which taken place against Clinton going back to her First Lady days and was seen by Karrin Vasby Anderson as a tool of containment against women in American politics,[356] flourished during the campaign, especially on the Internet but via conventional media as well.[357]" That section is under severe space constraints; more can be said (and to some degree already is) at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008#Gender. Have run out of time this morning, will look at this more later. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've now added more on this at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008#Gender. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That addresses my concerns with the article. I appreciate your adding the content. I know how some articles in Wikipedia can be edited by anybody more than others. 71.102.18.173 (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton – per WP:COMMONNAME, most people would know her and mainstream media refer to her as Hillary Clinton, without either of her middle names. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:57pm • 12:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This has been discussed many times, and subjected to formal Request for Moves twice, both times rejected. See here and here for those discussions. And please note that "Rodham" is not a middle name; it is the last name that she was born with and used even after marriage for a while and that she chooses to keep. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her official name, see her official Senate page (archived) and her official Secretary of State page and her signature. This was also the name she announced that she preferred when she became First Lady in 1993, see here. The serious media generally always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, see for example any New York Times article, such as this story from the other day, or see any Washington Post story, such as this one. The Times also uses Hillary Rodham Clinton to title its profile page on her. This is her name, and this is what the article's name should be. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Support, as the 'maiden-name' isn't required & she's been more often called Hillary Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I truly think the common WP reader has a slight preference toward just HC, but I think this is a WP:BLP with sensitive considerations in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Support: I think she minimized use of her maiden name in the early 90s. Most people just call her "Hillary Clinton" now. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: See all the links Wasted Time R used. It's also the name she used on all her books: It Takes a Village, Dear Socks, Dear Buddy, An Invitation to the White House, and Living History. I would also add her official biography from the Clinton Presidential Center, her official author profile from her publisher (Simon & Schuster), the profile from ABC News, the profile from The Washington Post, and the profile from BBC News. OCNative (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: agree with above examples, of her using her maiden name in her work, publications and public profiles. No reason why it should be shortened in the title. Many women use their maiden names these days. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. Almost invariably known throughout the world as Hillary Clinton. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. "Hillary Clinton" is her common name, according to this ngram. As far as what the serious media calls her, how about these headlines: "Hillary Clinton warns of Revolutionary Guard's growing influence in Iran" (Washington Post, February 16, 2010). "Why Hillary Clinton made a surprise stop in Yemen", (Christian Science Monitor, January 11, 2011) and "Obama, Hillary Clinton Top Most Admired List" (New York Times, December 28, 2010). Kauffner (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Headlines are always tight on space and thus introduce shortened forms. In two of the three cases you link to, the actual article text uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I should note that in the British media she is almost invariably referred to simply as Hillary Clinton, not just in headlines but throughout. I don't think I've ever heard her referred to on the TV news in the UK as Hillary Rodham Clinton (probably because, unlike the US, it is very unusual in the UK for women to retain their maiden name as an additional name when they marry and would be considered somewhat odd and even pretentious). As an international figure and since Wikipedia is an international project, it would be interesting to know how she is referred to in other countries outside the US. I suspect the answer would be plain old Hillary Clinton. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not disputing what you are saying about British usage, but I don't see that as an argument for article naming. Americans invariably use "Princess Diana" rather than "Diana, Princess of Wales", "Prince Charles" rather than "Charles, Prince of Wales", "Kate" or "Princess Kate" rather than "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge", and so on, yet each of those articles is properly located at the latter term. WP article style generally reflects the conventions of the source country, so British-subject articles have British English spellings but American-subject articles do not. What the UK may see as odd or pretentious has been a deliberate choice for some prominent American women, from Margaret Chase Smith and Coretta Scott King in the 1960s to Kay Bailey Hutchison as another example from today. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm not disputing that, and we in the UK would also commonly use Prince Charles, Princess Diana etc. Royal and aristocratic titles have long been an exception to the WP:COMMONNAME rule on Wikipedia and I'm not arguing the rights or wrongs of that. However, Mrs Clinton does not fall into that category, so WP:COMMONNAME does apply to her, and that's common name worldwide, not just in the USA. We use the name by which someone is commonly known, which is not necessarily the name which they choose to call themselves. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
But we also sometimes use the correct name in preference to the common name. For example, to take another famous first lady, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is correctly sited at that name, since it was the name she used in the latter stages of her life and the name that serious media refered to her by then and after her death. However in a Google search it gets several times fewer hits than each of "Jacqueline Kennedy", "Jackie Kennedy", and "Jackie O". We have articles on United States presidential election, 2012 and United Kingdom general election, 2010 even though those exact phrasings are almost never used by anyone. We have even more unwieldy constructs such as United States Senate election in New York, 2006, which is the most accurate formulation, in preference to more commonly used phrases like "2006 New York Senate election". However people commonly refer to the tragic HMS Hood as compared to the earlier ones, it surely isn't HMS Hood (51). For another military example, Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress is the full name for what gets heavily out-Googled by just "B-17" or "Flying Fortress". And so on. I submit that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is one of those cases where officialness and correctness should outweigh commonness. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Very strong oppose Per Wasted Time R and others: this is her name - not her middle name or just her "maiden" name - it is the name that she officially uses and has done so for many years; it is the name she publishes under; it is the name on her official campaign websites; it is the name on her official Secy of State biography; it is her official signature; it is her preference. It is her name and should continue to be the name of this article. This has been discussed many times, informally and formally here, and nothing has changed to suggest we should make any change in this. (And if headlines were how we determine names and titles here, we'd have articles, not redirects, named "Bloomie" and "Lady Di".) Tvoz/talk 02:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I must note that what name the subject might prefer is not normally a major factor in move discussions. Kauffner (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I listed it last, and didn't claim it was a major factor. It is worth noting. Tvoz/talk 18:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This is her offical political name. If he had been elected, she would have been introduced at her inauguration as Hilary Rodham CClinton, just like George Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush, Ronald Wilson Reagan, Lyndon Baines Johnson, JFK, FDR, and so on. SOXROX (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The majority of those articles aren't at their 'official political names'. Bill Clinton is the first example given at WP:COMMONNAME, if I recall correctly. Jenks24 (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Bill Clinton is corrected located. It's the official name he used as president, it's how he signs his name, it's the name he publishes under, it's the name the New York Times always uses, it's the name the Washington Post always uses, and so forth. None of these are true for "Hillary Clinton". That's the difference I'm trying to point out. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. We don't use official names and, as Necrothesp says, throughout the world she is commonly known as simply Hilary Clinton. Jenks24 (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Support - Currently best known as Hillary Clinton. Marcus Qwertyus 10:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Just stating that opinion doesn't really give us any new information or refute the points made by Wasted Time R, me, and other editors. And since no one is suggesting that we remove the Hillary Clinton redirect, I don't get why this issue is being raised now, or what is being claimed to have changed since the last times this was discussed and agreed on. Tvoz/talk 05:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Your motives are rooted in ideological grounds rather than policy. Who are you talking to? Marcus Qwertyus 05:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You have no basis for that accusation, so please don't personalize this - my "motives", if there are any, are based only on the facts that have been presented numerous times regarding the way she is referenced throughout the American press - and since she is American, our usual practice is to follow standards common in the subject's country, if they are supportable by the facts which they are here - and the way this article should properly be named according to policy, precedent, and long-standing consensus. Nothing has been presented here that suggests that the situation has changed since this was last discussed, which is what my comment is addressing. Tvoz/talk 14:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Look at all the major sourses which use Hillary Rodham Clinton, including herself. Flatterworld (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2011 fictional assassination

In March 2011, Clinton was angered over the fictional portrayal of an assassination attempt on her life in the television drama NCIS.(See: "Report: Hillary Clinton Mad About Fictional Assassination Attempt on 'NCIS'")

Petey Petenov (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sentence structure...

Last paragraph on the intro goes... "She has put into place institutional changes seeking to maximize departmental effectiveness and promote the empowerment of women worldwide. She has set records for most-traveled secretary for time in office. She has been at the forefront of the U.S. response to the 2011 Middle East protests, including advocating for the military intervention in Libya." Bad sentence structure here.

Just one variation we can use instead: "Her tenure as Secretary has set forth institutional changes seeking to maximize departmental effectiveness and promote the empowerment of women worldwide. Additionally, she has already set records for most-traveled secretary for time in office. Clinton has also been at the forefront in American response to the Middle East protests, particularly in advocating for military intervention in Libya."

Relatively minor mistake, but important in terms of a well-written article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.212.212 (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the structure was too repetitive, but I think your wording introduced unnecessary 'Additionally' and 'also' constructs. I've made a more minimal change. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Size

This article is creeping into the uncomfortable size at 71173 characters of readable prose. I GARed this in 2009 when it was 63KB and at 71KB it is getting to be a real problem. I see this as a situation where there is an army of people who refuse to let this get delisted and insist that this is the exception to the rule. We are getting to a point where if we moved even 1/6th of the content to related articles, it is still borderline. Is anyone inclined to do the pruning. Without the feeling that the 60KB limit is relevant this article will grow incessantly while she is in office. Something needs to be done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Secretary of State" section is not growing incessantly. The large bulk of material about her tenure goes into the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State subarticle (itself over 8,000 words now). This section holds pretty much the bare minimum (roughly, one paragraph per year in office with an additional one on overall initiatives and another evolving wrap-up one). And this section can be re-evaluated over time; I've just now removed two and a half items from it, which in retrospect did not constitute anything major and which will still be covered in the subarticle.

With the edits, this article is now down to 69 kB readable prose size, which per User:Dr_pda/Featured_article_statistics means there are about 40 featured articles the same size or greater. (And who knows how many such GA articles there are.) Several are similar in nature to this one – BLPs of people whose life and career have gone through a number of completely different phases, meaning that a comprehensive, GA/FA level of treatment will take more space than usual. And as for the 60 kB limit that you quote, there are an even hundred featured articles at that length or greater. So there are many exceptions to this guideline (and that's all it is, a guideline, not a rule), not just this one. And I think these exceptions make sense; at the end of the day, what's best for a particular subject is what should hold, not some arbitrary limit. If the involved editors feel that a coherent, comprehensive treatment of Nikita Khrushchev requires 94 kB of readable prose, then that's fine with me.

So in answer to your position of "Something needs to be done," I would say that, actually, nothing needs to be done. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Secretary of State section is now 6834. It was 2340 when I GARed this in both May and June. The article is up to 70706 from 64939 or 64333 at the end of the two GARs so 4494 of the 5767 or 6373 character growth was from the Secretary of State section. I am just showing the numbers. I just wish this could be like Barack.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You do mean May 2009, 4 months into her tenure? Obviously that is where growth would be, not in sections about earlier career phases. Obama's presidency section has grown too - what else would you expect? Tvoz/talk 04:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that Wasted Time R is quite right - in fact, she has been in this office for over 2-1/2 years already, and there is no reason to assert that the article will now grow incessantly. WTR has been conscientiously monitoring this article and keeping the weight of new material in balance, but as he says, she has had a multi-faceted life and career, and for this to be a comprehensive encyclopedia article that does justice to the subject we need to allow it to be longer than usual. This is not a case of a person whose career spans several iterations of the same type of office, like State Senator to congressman to senator - she has had radically different career and personal phases, and we need to present them all here in the main article without worrying about arbitrarily set size guidelines. I concur that the only thing that "needs to be done" is exactly what WTR has been doing quite ably. Tvoz/talk 03:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Popularity

I think its worth noting that according to a latest poll taken by Bloomberg, that she is the most popular politician in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.45 (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The article already said "... her favorable-unfavorable ratings during 2010 were easily the highest of any active, nationally prominent American political figure" (see the "Cultural and political image" section), but I've made it "2010 and 2011" and added a cite to the Bloomberg poll. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

State of the Union, Jerry Oppenheimer

Oppenheimer, Jerry. State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton. HarperCollins, 2000. ISBN 0-06-019392-1. i would like to add some material from this book. does anyone here consider this book unreliable or poorly sourced? should there be no objection, i will start adding material in 254 hours. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The book is indeed unreliable. Oppenheimer was a former reporter for the National Enquirer whose specialty is the digging-up-dirt biography. The main accusation in it, the one from Paul Fray, was vehemently denied by the Clintons, has never been further substantiated, and has largely been forgotten since the book came out in 2000. Does that mean that everything in the book is made up? Not necessarily, and maybe he did uncover Bill's other woman from 1974. But in general this kind of book is designed to titillate and sell copies, and that's not the kind of book that WP:RS really approves of. Moreover, for anything controversial, this article generally uses two different sources, to try to stay on the safe side, rather than relying upon anything that only one source says. And the WP:BLP policy definitely means that we come down on the safe side when dealing with living biographical subjects. So to answer your question, yes there is an objection. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If She's of French Canadian Descent, She may also be Part Native American

Many French Canadians have some Native heritage. I have noticed that she has very high cheekbones.

65.102.241.122 (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In Living History, Hillary claims some Native American ancestry through her maternal grandmother, Della Murray, which is also where her French Canadian ancestry comes from. But this NEGHS article, which is considered authoritative by the WP:FAC people, does not mention any Native American involvement, so this WP bio does not either. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Mention of job offer in dedication of thesis

In 1969, at age 22, the subject of this article wrote 92 pages, and on just one of them she was permitted the 1st person. The dedication is her own words. The subject of the dedication is the very subject of this article. "Although I..." it begins. When the subject of an BIO article writes in the first person about themselves, it demands attention from us. The dedication is clearly carefully considered. It offers readers of WP an extraordinary unique view into the mindset of the person at that point in time. Frankly, I think the strident feminism of the 'although I have no "loving wife"' comment to be as or more revealing of the person, but it is also very clear that the subject of this article thought it important and noteworthy to document for all time that the subject of her thesis offered her a job. To have a section on the college experience of the subject of this article, and some sentences on the thesis, and not include this particular detail, is bias. Further, this point of fact, that Rodham thanked Alinsky for a job offer in her thesis, is referenced in RS on the subject of this article, and readers will be coming to our WP to see if it is true (like I did). It is true. Why not say so? Hugh (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a question of truth or sourcing (yes, she received a job offer from Alinsky, which she declined) but of importance and weighting. This article is extremely constrained on space – see for example Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hillary Rodham Clinton/3 in which someone tried to strip the "Good Article" status away on account of it being too long – and we have to continually decide what belongs and what doesn't belong. The article has only a brief mention of the senior thesis as it is because of this (but instead we provide a link to the Hillary Rodham senior thesis article, where readers can learn about the thesis and all the speculation over it in much more detail). If we were going to expand the text, it would be to add what she actually said about Alinsky in the thesis, not add this declined job offer. And if we did mention this declined offer, we'd also need to mention that she got into Harvard Law School too, but chose Yale, and also mention that she had an offer to become a Fulbright Scholar and travel to India. You can see where this leads. And if you look at this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit, you'll see other recent examples of additions moved out of this article on the same grounds of space.

Furthermore your perspective on this seems a bit overheated. What you see as "strident feminism" others will see as a bit of humor; what you see as a "dedication" others will see as what the page is actually titled, "Acknowledgements"; what you see as the only page in the first person, others will point to the end notes on page 88, where she discusses several of the other interviews she did in the first person as well; and what you see as "important and noteworthy to document for all time" others will see as a courtesy note for a work that, like almost all student works, was likely to be read by one professor, maybe a few other people, then never see the light of day again. Finally there's a question of readers being misled. Anything associated with the name "Alinsky" is kind of radioactive these days, and without enough background on what the thesis established about her views on Alinksy, this kind of mention could lead some readers to think she was some kind of Alinsky disciple, which she was not. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"importance and weighting" Yes, I agree, this is the issue. And Alinsky is in the news again. The HRC-Alinsky connection is being mentioned. The job offer, too. The job offer is in multiple RS but not in the WP article on HRC. That's a problem. Our readers will be coming here, like I did, incredulous. Not finding mention of the job offer, they might click thru to the thesis article, but even those that do, some will think, like I did, WP:POVFORK, and that hurts our credability; what ELSE is WP not telling me about HRC? WP:DUE provides us an objective criteria, proportion to WP:RS. Hugh (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Acknowledgements" Yes, I agree, it reads to me as an attempt to amuse but also a hyper-self-conscious, non-dedication dedication written by a hyper-self-conscious 22 year-old co-ed who has read a bunch of theses including their sappy dedications. The subject of this article is one of the world's leading experts on the subject of this article. "Living History" was written from the vantage point of 2003, and it is of course cited extensively. With this acknowlegment we have an interesting piece of text written ABOUT the subject of this article, BY the subject of this article, from 1969. Hugh (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"without enough background", "Alinsky" is kind of radioactive" WP:DECISION The deleted sentence in question clearly states in an in-text citation that this is a 22-year old HRC writing, I trust our readers to interpret this in its context. We are not asked to write least-common-denominator prose that can never be misinterpreted by anyone. Hugh (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"declined offer" the declined offers are all notable, most folks don't have those kinds of options, if you can find them in RS they belong here because they reinforce the portrait of a young woman who knows what she wants, early; I would encourage this, but that is a separate issue from this one sentence. I respectfully disagree that were we to include this one sentence on the subject's written acknowledgment of an Alinksy job offer that necessarily "we'd also need to mention" other roads not taken, unless they are also in multiple RS. (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"too long" I don't read WP:LIMIT to authorize article freezes, it asks us to use common sense. The sentence in question is 145 bytes with ref, less than 1/10 of 1% of the article length. Hugh (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"this kind of mention could lead some readers to think she was some kind of Alinsky disciple, which she was not" I agree she was not. May I suggest we simply change the current text from "...Rodham wrote her senior thesis about the tactics..." to "...Rodham wrote her senior thesis critiquing the tactics..." which is a fair summary of the primary and secondary RS, to address this possiblity of confusion, if can we afford the extra 5 bytes? Hugh (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

done Hugh (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"If we were going to expand the text, it would be to add what she actually said about Alinsky in the thesis, not add this declined job offer." Having mentioned that the subject of the thesis was Alinsky, yes, I agree, we need to mention that it is a critique, which it is (see above). However, I would argue that the acknowledgement is in some sense MORE important than the content since it is HRC writing about HRC, SHE thought the job offer was important, at that moment in her life, why can't we? Hugh (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many things that HRC has done that multiple RS's support that are not in this article. For instance, the most well-known story about HRC from the time in question, the reason she chose Yale Law over Harvard Law, is not in this article. Considering that over 100 books have been written about her, it's pretty clear that there's lots of stuff that's not in Wikipedia about her. Even limiting oneself to material about her in Wikipedia, this is still true of this article. The Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article has 9,700 words, of which only about 1,300 are in the main article. That's a lot of important, relevant, well-sourced stuff left on the cutting room floor. The White House travel office controversy article, much of which directly concerns HRC, has 4,000 words, but the summary of Travelgate in the HRC main article is only about 130 words. White House FBI files controversy 2,300 words, main article less than 100. And so on. These aren't POVFORKs, these are examples of the standard way to treat an important event in more detail. In fact the latter two articles have both made GA status.

As for HRC writing about HRC, there's hundreds of pages of that in Living History, most of which we completely ignore. As for "the portrait of a young woman who knows what she wants, early," I'm pretty sure she didn't have in mind marrying a politician and moving to Arkansas. So again, I think you're really overinterpreting these acknowledgements.

perhaps. I think you may be undervaluing them. safest then is to take them at face value, a few sentences written by HRC about HRC in 1969. Hugh (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You also seem to think that if X is in the news, and readers come to Wikipedia and don't find anything about X, that's a problem. It isn't. See WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. People who want to learn more about the Alinsky thesis should go to that Dedman article – it's still the best thing written about it – and then they should track down a copy of the thesis itself and read it for themselves. (Most will probably give up around page 11 or 12 when the discussion starts to get theoretical, with no 'Workers of the world, unite!' anywhere.)

Thanks, I understand that WP is not a newspaper. A use case for the HRC article in WP is folks coming to check this particular point of fact, failing that maybe get a ref. It seems odd for a Wikipedian to say "anyone who really wants to learn about X can always go to the primary & 2ndary sources." Seems like that position kinda undermines the whole endeavor. Hugh (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

But in any case, I'm willing to create an explanatory Note that gives a bit more detail on the thesis, includes the job offer, and includes her other choices at the time as well as the why-declined-Harvard story. The Notes don't get included in the word count and that's how the article currently handles other things of this ilk, including ones like Tammy Wynette and baked cookies that are better known than this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

what ilk? perceived unflattering? Hugh (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you state what you are willing to do. Not a word can be added, and let me guess, not a word deleted either. HRC is GA. HRC is the perfect WP article. Is WP:LIMIT a backdoor to WP:OWNER? I feel WP:LIMIT is being used to avoid what we should really be engaged in, a good faith discussion on the merits of the 145 characters deleted. Hugh (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, a Note isn't really right here, because that was intended to help explain events that didn't have an article of their own. This one does. So back to "A use case for the HRC article in WP is folks coming to check this particular point of fact." They do see this particular fact if they find the Hillary Rodham senior thesis article. So I've changed the text in the main article to have an extra link to this article and I've expanded the overtext of the link that is there. It should now be much more 'tempting' to click on that link. Also note that many people find things in Wikipedia by directly coming from search engines, often in response to recent news. I checked, and this Google search for <hillary clinton saul alinsky thesis> finds the thesis article as the second hit, not this main article, as does this Google search for <hillary clinton saul alinsky job offer>. Same story with this Bing search.

WP:MOS We are asked to write articles that are easy to navigate in and of themselves, without resort an external tool such as Google or other. Hugh (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make myself clear, I guess. If WP has an article located at a place that Google ranks high, that's a good thing, since experience has shown that's how many readers land at any particular page. But obviously, internal navigation is also very important. Besides the two links just discussed, Hillary Rodham senior thesis is also linked to from the {{Hillary Rodham Clinton}} template that's at the bottom of this and many other articles, and from Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I would note that the Dedman story came out five years ago, in March 2007, and of the millions of readers of this article and the hundreds of commenters on this Talk page, you're the very first one to be upset that the declined Alinsky job offer isn't in the main article. It's good that you added it to Hillary Rodham senior thesis (it was an oversight by me to leave it out), but that's where it belongs (and if you look at Talk:Hillary Rodham senior thesis you'll see that I've been a strong defender of that article's existence in the past). Again, WP:Summary style has to be respected – there are some juicy parts to the Travelgate story, for example, such as "hell to pay" and "congenital liar" and "a more forceful response to that—on the bridge of Mr. Safire's nose" – but they are to be found in White House travel office controversy not in the main article.

I'm not upset, thanks, don't worry about me, ok? Let's worry about what's best for our readers. Hugh (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"WP:Summary style has to be respected" I agree, thanks, WP:SUMMARY is the way forward for this immediate issue and more broadly for this article and its major problem, WP:LIMIT. Hugh (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, clearly I think the current length of the article is appropriate, since I strongly defended it at the last GAR. As you suspect, I don't think this article has any major problems, on this count or otherwise. And as you point out, WP:SIZE is just a guideline, and there are a number of high-quality FA and GA articles that exceed it, just like this one does. Nevertheless, people zero in on this one for some reason, so I do make an effort to keep the size from just growing willy-nilly. My main objection to your change is undue weight, both in terms of not showing the other choices from back then and in terms of making the Alinsky connection appear to be stronger than it actually was. I'm a big believer in finding a place where such associations or events or positions can be explained in much more detail, to give full context for good understanding. That's one of the reasons all the Category:Political positions of American politicians articles were created, for example. It was simply impossible to give those subjects fair treatment inside the main BLPs. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"This article is extremely constrained on space" in response to an experienced editor adding one sentence with a reference, and then a few days later "the current length of the article is appropriate" in response to a suggestion from an experienced editor on a way forward on WP:LIMIT, seems something of a finesse at best, almost WP:LAWYER-ish to me Hugh (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am learning that a WP article can eventually evolve into a sweet spot where nothing can be added and nothing can be taken away. I am learning advanced WP:LAWYERING techniques. Thank you. May I respectfully suggest we consider full protection for this article in celebration of our achievement of the perfect WP article. I would like to revise my earlier review. In my opinion the main problem with this article is WP:OWNER, and WP:LIMIT and the deliberate obsfucations of the WP:SUMMARY main/subarticle structure, which frustrates editorial progress on WP:LIMIT, are symptoms. Hugh (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, it would be useful to see what others think. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In August 1974, Rodham moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and became one of only two female faculty members in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,[58][59] where Bill Clinton also was.

remove 'where Bill Clinton also was' as redundant and grammatically infantile Garyfleshman (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Done --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea, if awkwardly worded, was to make clear that Bill was also at the university in Fayetteville at the time (not in Little Rock), but I guess that can be inferred from the previous context. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Excessive subsectioning

I do not agree with HughD's breaking up of the article into third-level subsections. Excessively large Tables of Content are frowned upon, especially at WP:FAC (see for example this exchange, where I had to defend it at just a two-level state). WP:SUMMARY does not require new subheadings every time a detailed article is mentioned, just for the most major ones that are directly linked to the article topic. If an author writes ten books each of which has an article, that does not require ten subheadings in the author article. If a famous figure has an article exploring some relatively minor matter, such as Hillary Rodham senior thesis, that does not mean that matter merits a subheading in the main article. (I recently threw out a separate section about Seamus (dog) from the Mitt Romney article for the very same reason.) If someone is involved in a major event that many other people are involved in too, it does not require a subheading (e.g., Whitewater controversy is about a lot more than just Hillary). This is a solution in search of a problem; there is no evidence that anybody ever had trouble finding material in this article about Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore HughD's restructuring brings about problems of WP:Undue weight and WP:BLP fairness, by focusing all of the new third-level subheadings on various controversies and investigations. Bear in mind that Hillary was never charged with any wrongdoing, much less found guilty, in any of these investigations. Many people consider that they were politically motivated and/or the result of an Independent Counsel process that got out of hand. The previous section title of "Whitewater and other investigations" is quite adequate, especially considering that they were all carried out under the umbrella of the Whitewater Independent Counsel. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Many people consider that they were politically motivated" I agree; this POV is available in multiple WP:RS and is an omission in the article content. Hugh (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

done, make possible political motivation explicit in content WP:NPOV Hugh (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Hillary was never charged with any wrongdoing, much less found guilty" Please review WP:WEIGHT. Weight is proportion to WP:RS. Weight is independent of guilt/innocence. Thanks. 18:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please cite WP:MOS in support of your characterization of a third level of subheadings as excessive. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Repost request: Please cite WP:MOS in support of your characterization of a third level of subheadings as excessive. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

REPOST WP:CONSENSUS: Please cite a policy or guideline in support of your characterization of a 3rd level of subheadings as "excessive." Hugh (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Experience at FAC with respect to the WP:WIAFA 2b "a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents" requirement. I've seen longish two-level ToC's objected to, including during one of this article's FAC's, so I'm pretty sure that long three-level ones would be objected to even more. (I think the basic objection is to articles whose structure ends up looking like a computer manual.) Wasted Time R (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

REPOST WP:CONSENSUS: Please cite a policy or guideline in support of your characterization of a 3rd level of subheadings as "excessive."

"experience at FAC" not a policy or guideline Hugh (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

in any case HRC is not a FAC or FA; I don't think it's GA, it's too long due to a severe WP:OWNER problem Hugh (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" is not the same as excessive, what is your objective basis for claiming 3 levels of subheadings in one of WP's LONGEST most COMPLEX articles is excessive? please advise. WP:LAY makes 6 levels available to us; if any article needs 3 it's HRC! Hugh (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We're going around in circles on this point. How about if you draft up a proposal for what you think the full ToC should be, at however many levels you think it should be, and then I can comment. And if you don't think the article should be GA, then you could put it up at WP:GAR. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have to correct myself. I've now gone through about 50 of the "long" FA articles (similar or longer in length to this article), and the Tables of Contents in them are of all different shapes and sizes, including a few that are very long and a number that go to three levels. So I generalized incorrectly from the feedback I got at one of this article's FACs, and clearly WIAFA 2b will not prevent a longer or deeper ToC in this article. I should have done this check before, when we first got into this question. So I'd suggest again, make an outline of what you think a better ToC would be, and we'll look over that. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! this is very heartening for me Hugh (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I will say, though, by looking at other articles I still think I'm right that the existence of a sub/detail article does not mean the main article has to have a subheading for it. FA John McCain does not have a subheading that corresponds to either Keating Five or John McCain lobbyist controversy. FA Nikita Khrushchev does not have a subheading that corresponds to Khrushchev Thaw or Kitchen Debate. FA Richard Nixon does not have a subheading that corresponds to Richard Nixon's last press conference or one limited to Checkers speech. FA Ronald Reagan does not have a subheading corresponding to There you go again or Trust, but verify. GA Bill Clinton does not have a subheading that corresponds to Impeachment of Bill Clinton or one limited to Lewinsky scandal. And so on. So in drawing up an outline for an expanded table of contents, the existing sub/detail articles should not be the determining factor, but instead whatever makes the most sense for the material in the main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from blanket undoes and please limit your edits to individual sections and please cite a WP policy or guideline on each edit. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This article "Almost certainly should be divided" as per WP:LIMIT. WP:SUMMARY is how we deal with WP:LIMIT issues. HRC is WP:BLP and continues to do notable things. Let's make the main/subartcle structure more explicit, leave the subheadings and main/details/see alsos in place, and see what happens, to encourage editors to consider the appropriate level for an edit or new content. If we can move one sentence from each section to a subarticle we can get off the long list. If we hide the subarticles it won't happen (WP:LIMIT editor issue). If you wish to advocate for a new summary style which eschews subheadings and main/details/see alsos in favor of discrete or multiple in-text wikilinks, the talk pages of the guidelines might be a better forum. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA 2b says "a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents". I submit that your proposed table of contents is too long and too deep and would be rejected there. All of your edit comments have used WP:SUMMARY as a justification, but it does not say what you seem to think it says. Look at the World War II article that it uses as a primary example. Not all of the "main", "seealso", and "details" xrefs to subarticles have their own subheading, in fact many do not. And many of the most prominent and highly-read subarticles, such as Battle of Britain, Attack on Pearl Harbor, and D-Day do not even have xrefs at all, there are just have simple links to them in the text. So your idea that the existence of subarticles must dictate the sectioning structure of the main article is not correct. The sectioning structure of the main article must make sense based on what's most important for the topic. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

All of WWII is 180K, HRC at mid-career is 190K. Hugh (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

She's hardly at mid-career, she's talking about retiring at the end of this Sec State term. If she changes her mind and gets elected president in 2016, then I'm all with you, this article will have to be restructured. Until then, this is a bridge we don't need to cross. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

All of WWII is shorter than HRC. Hugh (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bill, a 2-term Leader of the Free World & 3+ term governor, is shorter than Hill. Hugh (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, increasing the visibility of the subarticles is another matter. I am fine with attempts to do this that do not distort the article structure. After all, I wrote many of the subarticles, and am eager for people to read them! Additions of extra "further info" xrefs under the existing subheadings would be okay with me, for example.

Finally, you are ignoring the most important guideline of all. Wikipedia operates by WP:Consensus, and right now you do not have it for the changes you are making. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, you miscalculated at WP:LIMIT. Based on readable prose size, it is not in the "Almost certainly should be divided" category. It is on Special:Longpages, to be sure, but only in 379th place, which means there's a lot that are longer. Moreover, User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics shows that there are 33 current Featured Articles longer than it, some much longer, including some BLPs of roughly similar subjects (Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, etc.), and who knows how many GA articles are longer than it as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please cite WP:MOS, policy or guideline in support of your contention that this article should be NOT be further divided. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Repost request: I find no reference in WP:MOS to a rank cut-off on Special:Longpages as a criterion for making judgements on WP:LIMIT. Please direct me. Thank you. WP:CONSENSUS Hugh (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

HRC is the 379th longest of 3,866,229 articles, in other words HRC is in the top ONE HUNDREDTH of 1% of all articles. Hugh (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A normative approach to policies and guidelines, an interesting proposal! Articles are only long if they are in the, I don't know, what are you comfotable with? say top one thousandth of one percent of all articles. Why don't you bring this up at WP:LIMIT talk? Go ahead and get the discussion started and I'll jump in and get your back, we'll call it WP:CONSENSUS. This could greatly simplify policies and guidelines and would be a LOT more flexible, don't you agree? Hugh (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

i agree with this analysis and conclusion completely. The structure described has served this complex article well, and I see no reason to change it. Tvoz/talk 05:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've undone the changes accordingly. There would have to be a significant consensus in favor of such a major structural change. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct - and despite there being no consensus, Hugh returned the article to his preferred structure. I reverted to the long-standing consensus structure, as well as the "under infobox" template. There is no consensus for these changes, and they shouldn't be made without it - especially considering the extensive review this article has received. Discussion here is always welcome, of course. Tvoz/talk 21:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"long-standing consensus structure" please provide a reference, thank you. do you refer to the 2009 GAR, when this article was 60K, less than 1/3 its current length? WP:CCC Hugh (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You're mixing up two different metrics, total byte length (what the history command shows) and readable prose size (what the "page size" tool shows). The article has only increased a little in size since 2009. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

plase provide a reference to the "long-standing consensus structure" thanks Hugh (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Repost request: please provide a reference to the "long-standing consensus" on the structure. thanks Hugh (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Like she said. HughD, you're just edit-warring at this point. WP:DRNC is a non-binding essay and talks about editors who don't give reasons for reversion to consensus, but I've filled these Talk sections with reasons so even that essay is inapplicable. I know you're torqued at me because I didn't want to include the Alinksy job offer in the main article, but that's no reason to get yourself blocked or something. I'm actually a reasonable guy and I am willing to discuss matters with you, but you're just engaging in unilaterial actions at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

please don't speak for me, thank you WP:NPA Hugh (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

every edit is a unilateral action WP:BOLD Hugh (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's start over: four issues of contention

Let's start over. I can identify four issues of contention:

Should this article mention the Alinksy job offer?
Should this article's sectioning be expanded to introduce a third level of subsections, tied to the subarticles that exist on various controversies and investigations?
Is the article size too long per WP:LIMIT?
What links should exist in the {{HillaryRodhamClintonSegmentsUnderInfoBox}} template that produces the "Hillary Rodham Clinton series" box under the infobox?

On #1, Tvoz said it was not notable in her edit summary and I said it was undue weight unless her other career options from that time were described as well. But clearly this is a localized point of dispute and I'm discuss it again.

On #2, this is that the reversions have been about. You began by using WP:SUMMARY as a justification but you now seem to be using WP:LIMIT as a justification. But this expanding of the table of contents does nothing to shorten to shorten the article, just to highlight various controversies she was involved in. So I think this disagreement is unrelated to the size issue of #3. And I think you have misread WP:SUMMARY as requiring that every subarticle be represented via a subheading. Tvoz also strongly disagrees with this change, as she noted above.

You oppose any lengthening of the TOC yet oppose any shortening of article. Quite the finesse once again WP:LAWYERING. Should not an article with a compelling reason to exceed WP:LIMIT be expected to have a longer than average TOC? As long as the TOC of this article is not in the top one one-hundredth of 1% of the longest TOCs of all WP articles, we're fine, right? Hugh (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there is a correlation between length of article and length of ToC, but it isn't necessarily linear. I think the longest FA article of all is Elvis Presley, but the ToC isn't super long and stays at two levels. If I thought there was a compelling reason to go to a third level with this article's ToC, I would make an argument for it, but so far I haven't seen it. In particular, I don't think it's needed to delineate or mark sub/detail articles, as we've already discussed. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

On #3, The GAR on this two years ago started with a proposal this be article be pruned back to 60 KB of readable prose, but ended without delisting the article and instead giving a recommendation that "article editors should stay on their toes and look for further trims at every opportunity". As I've explained above, that's what I've tried to do, keep the article at its present level of detail but look for ways to minimize its ongoing growth (it has grown by about 7 KB readable prose size since that GAR, almost exclusively due to additions in the "Secretary of State" section. What is your proposal here? To get back to 60 KB? What specifically would you propose to trim out? WP:LIMIT's rule of thumb for an article with this amount of readable prose size is "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" and, just as I said at the GAR, I believe the current length is justified here.

On #4, this has been the other place that has seen some reversions. I'm open to discussion about what this series box should contain. The original editor who pushed for their use, Justmeherenow, has since left the scene. At the time, they were intended for the major biographical subarticles only – see the ones for John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, which were the first of these for American political BLP subjects – but other, lesser links have appeared in some of these 'series' boxes as well ("Awards and honors" and "List of books" in this article, "Electoral history" in the Mitt Romney one). One way to go forward would be to include as many subarticles and detail articles as possible, which seems to be what the Barack Obama one does. I would be okay with that, but we need to see what Tvoz has to say on it. But I am against just expanding it to include the two subarticles on the senior thesis and cattle futures trading. Others that are not listed are more important, including Whitewater and Travelgate and the 2000 U.S. senate election.

So anyway, let's see if we can discuss each of these points separately and not get them mixed up with each other, which is what I think has happened in the back-and-forth above. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the talk of the last few days I can understand why you might want to start over. May I respectfully suggest you put some hard thought into how you treat your fellow Wikipedians. I'm spending a lot less time on talk pages and a lot more time on content and I'm really, really happy about that. This is not fun for me. There's work to do. You win. Congratulations on the perfect WP article! Hugh (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That comment was uncalled for. Wasted Time R is one of the most accommodating editors I've worked with here - even-handed and always willing to hear another opinion and try to incorporate it into the varied group of articles he regularly edits. In fact he treats his fellow editors a lot better than many other editors do. Discussing different approaches to how to edit an article is exactly what we should be doing, not unilaterally changing text in the face of objections that are raised. Bold doesn't trump consensus. Tvoz/talk 08:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

On the substance re #4 - I don't love the "under infobox" box approach in general, but if you look closely at the Obama article you'll see that box only includes fairly major subarticles - there are a lot not included, and that makes sense. Selecting cattle futures and senior thesis to add to the HRC box gives them much more weight than I think they should have - why those two and not some of the others? They don't belong there, in my opinion, The answer, I think, is the navigation box on the bottom of the page that correctly lists all of the articles related to Hillary, as do the similar nav boxes on the bottom of Obama under "Barack Obama"and "Public image". Listing all of them in the under-infobox boxes would be unwieldy and not helpful as a navigation tool. I'd consider opening up the nav boxes a bit, here and especially on Obama, to add maybe one or two more visible bars so people would know what's under there, but if we keep the under-infobox boxes, I would keep them short so they are useful. I think including the list of books by and about her is a good idea, and I'd leave off the awards and honors.

On #1 the Alinsky "job offer" - I think mentioning it in the subarticle is appropriate, and unnecessary here. I said not notable, but what I should have said is not notable enough to be here. No problem with it being mentioned in the sub, but including it here suggests that it had more importance in her life than we have evidence of.

On #3, I think WTR has done an excellent job of balancing the need to include new material with the need to keep the article to some kind of reasonable length. As has been said over and over again, this subject has had a complex life, encompassing several careers, and they all need to be touched upon here - I agree completely that this article is a prime example of one for which some extra length and reading time is justified.

I understand you are very happy with the article and each other, thanks. Do any 2 editors constitute WP:CONSENSUS? Do I need a 2nd? Hugh (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

On #2, I've already said that adding those subsections and thereby including them in the TOC gives them much more weight than they should have. As WTR said, this has nothing to do with WP:LIMIT and misunderstands WP:SUMMARY. Tvoz/talk 08:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please reference a policy or guideline relating subheadings to weight. Hugh (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

HughD, the most recent change you made to "Whitewater and other investigations" is more along the lines of what I was thinking of. However, it suffers from making the text choppy with italicized xrefs. Also, because not every item in the paragraph has a detail article (Foster files doesn't), it could get a bit confusing as to what text corresponds to what xref. (And you left out the xref to the Filegate article, was that intentional or an oversight?) I made a change that took the common alternate approach of listing a series of detail articles underneath the overall section header. See what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I like this new section hatnote that lists the sub articles - it works well and is a good improvement to the article, making it easier to find the links. Tvoz/talk 23:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, thank you very much! this is encouraging. Hatnotes are key to moving forward with this article. Editor issues are equally valid as reader issues WP:LIMIT. As I suggested 5 Feb above and now repeat, we need to make the article/subarticle relationships as explicit as possible in order to better share this editing effort with our fellow editors, that they may come along and make informed decisions about whether current content or new content is best in the main article or in a related article. If our peers don't know about the related articles this won't happen. And you know what would make it even EASIER to find the links? If the links were closer to the material they summarize. Hugh (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

HughD, to respond to your "repeat" requests, I didn't say that MoS discouraged long and deep Table of Contents, but WP:WIAFA 2b does, and this article is always kept at an FAC level (see for example Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 13#When are you planning to run this article through FAC?). Regarding "long-standing consensus structure", my point is that this is an article that works, in the sense that it's GA/near FA and has been stable for a long time. It is describing a very controversial figure in American politics, who as Tvoz says has had a number of very distinct stages to her life and career. In order to thoroughly cover all of her life and accomplishments and setbacks and controversies, the article has to be detailed, present all views, and be heavily cited. I believe this article has successfully done this. It has had relatively few edit wars given its controversial nature and never been locked down or put on 1RR probation or built up 50 talk page archives or shown the other symptoms of an embattled article (compare to the Obama and Palin articles, for example). Size is not the most important criteria in a BLP; conformance to WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV are, and I believe this article does all that well. You yourself said "WP:LIMIT asks us to use common sense" and I think common sense and years of experience indicates that, as Tvoz said, the extra length here is justifiable. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please direct me to where WP:WIAFA references "long and deep Table of Contents" thanks Hugh (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation of WIAFA 2b "a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents". Your mileage may vary. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

See above – having looked at many long FA articles, I'm now correcting myself on this point – long and three-level ToC's are clearly accepted at FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please show me where a policy or guideline that references this "works" thing When in doubt use italics? I would like to learn more about this criteria, thanks Hugh (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully understand why this article is what you call "stable" T, WTR I would like to hear from both of you individually what WP:OWNER means to you Hugh (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"very distinct stages" REPOST (no response earlier in disregard of WP:CONSENSUS) Bill, a 2-term Leader of the Free World, 3+ term governor, attorney, author, activist, is shorter than Hill. Hugh (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"common sense" REPOST (no response earlier in disregard of WP:CONSENSUS) All of WWII is shorter than HRC Hugh (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"50 talk page archives" I fully understand the many frequent talk page archivings. I expect to participate in when this particular discussion is archived WP:CONCENSUS thanks Hugh (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding who's longer than who: It varies a lot, like everything else on WP, since there's no central oversight. Bill Clinton is surprisingly short, I agree. I haven't looked at it enough to have an opinion about whether that length is appropriate or not. On the other hand, to pick another example, Madonna (entertainer) is 3 Kb readable prose longer than this article and is FA. It's not a bad comparison because they both can lay claim to being the most well-known woman in the world at one time or another, with a cultural impact in addition to their professional accomplishments. We can go back and forth finding articles longer and shorter than this one, but at the end of the day I believe that the appropriate length should be found that best fits each article's subject, not in comparison with other articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "works", "stable", and ownership, I will just quote what's at WP:OAS:

Ownership and stewardship

Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly.

non-responsive again. I asked you what it means to you Hugh (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what it means to me, that's why I quoted it at length. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

infobox

Unexplained changes with no edit summary were made twice recently to the infobox, including a couple of odd things. I've removed the "relations" field as it is unwieldy and really not that informative at this stage in her life - there are of course links in the article to her parents and brothers. Further, "Yale Law School" gives more information than "Yale University" and no reason was given for changing that, and why would you change "Chelsea Clinton" to "Chelsea"? Also reinstated the years her State Dept deputies served, lest it appear they were simultaneous. Finally, I added the "other political affiliations" field for her youthful flirtation with the Republican party, but actually think that entry is not necessary and we could go just with Democratic, as that has been her identification for over 40 years. Tvoz/talk 20:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I also think only the Democratic Party should be listed. Lots of people switch party preferences or affiliations early in life. The dual infobox listing should really be reserved for politicians who switch after already holding an office, like Richard Shelby or John Lindsay or Jim Jeffords. As usual, WP isn't consistent; the Ronald Reagan article infobox list him as a Democrat before 1962, but the Mitt Romney infobox does not list him as an independent before 1993. Maybe somebody should try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government to see what they think. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point - the field makes perfect sense for someone like Lindsay or Michael Bloomberg but doesn't feel right here. Tvoz/talk 00:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

List of books written by her?

I guess I shouldn't have looked at this article expecting to find something about "Texts from Hillary" (despite the potential relevance to her public image and popularity, and her unexpected reaction), but why is there no separate list of books written by Hillary Clinton, and I mean all of them? List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton has a misleading title (it also lists books authored by Clinton that are not about her own person), and while it does include a list of books written by her, the listing (which, I repeat, is essentially hidden in a mistitled article) does not seem to be exhaustive by any means: the German article lists a book in French, for example. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Texts from Hillary" was on my list of things to look at. For now, I've added it to the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article ... given that it's already ended, I don't know that it will have the lasting influence to merit inclusion in this article however. I have renamed the list article to List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton, to cover your objection, although that title is a bit of a dodge as well since it covers some scholarly articles as well. As for the book in French, I assume you mean Civiliser la démocratie ... I've had trouble figuring out exactly what that is. I get the feeling it's driven more by Benjamin Barber than by Hillary, but will look at it more over the weekend. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So Eine Welt für Kinder is the German edition of It Takes a Village, and Gelebte Geschichte of Living History? Fair enough, in this case I retract my criticism – the list seems to be complete, except possibly for that French-titled book. As for the meme, it's not tied to the Tumblr page it came from and people are free to post new incarnations elsewhere, though whether it will have a more enduring life of its own is admittedly uncertain, but its effect on her image may well outlast it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton share a laugh before their meeting at State Secretariat building in Kolkata..JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton share a laugh before their meeting at State Secretariat building in Kolkata..JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton share a laugh before their meeting at State Secretariat building in Kolkata..JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not in keeping with the tone of an encyclopedia

The following paragraph from the introduction;

"Clinton became the first former First Lady to serve in a president's cabinet. She has put into place institutional changes seeking to maximize departmental effectiveness and promote the empowerment of women worldwide, and has set records for most-traveled secretary for time in office. She has been at the forefront of the U.S. response to the Arab Spring, including advocating for the military intervention in Libya. She has used "smart power" as the strategy for asserting U.S. leadership and values in the world and has championed the use of social media in getting the U.S. message out.",

sounds like boosterism and PR. Like it came from a campaign brochure rather than a NPOV encyclopedia. And while I don't disagree with any of the points made, I wonder if there is a way of rephrasing those statements, so that they're more in keeping with the tone of an encyclopedia.

Philip72 (talk) 10:32, 05 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. Seems to me all it is is a straight-up summary of what is found and well-sourced in the rest of the article, as is appropriate for the intro. Tvoz/talk 16:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to capture the major themes of her tenure. Most newspaper and other media stories about her have emphasized smart power and the championing of women, so those are two obvious ones to include. The Arab Spring has been the most momentous foreign policy development during this period, so that seemed appropriate to mention, as well as where she stood on Libya. Media stories have also emphasized how much she has traveled and how much stamina she has in doing so, so that seems important to include. I suppose "the first former First Lady to serve in a president's cabinet" could be removed from the lead; while true, it's less significant than being elected senator or running for president. As for phrasing, please suggest some alternates that sound less boosterish to you. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

While I do see Philip's point (and I think that paragraph would fit very neatly into a Clinton 2016 pamphlet), I also think the editor(s) responsible for crafting it have done so in a manner that stays just inside the line of acceptability. Could it be written more neutrally? I think clearly yes. But that is no guarantee that it would emerge better, in other words, as well-written. Sometimes doing contortions just to achieve an infinitesimally greater degree of neutrality aren't worth the effort. And it is always better to err on the side of positive coverage than negative, given WP:BLP. So Philip, I see your point, but it's not enough to do battle over, my friend. 98.71.252.15 (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Lewinsky graph

There is currently a graph--very nicely done, by the way--that on my browser appears in the Lewinsky section. It shows the ups and downs of HRC's popularity from 1997-2000. I cannot for the life of me think of why this should be included. Sure, it may be of some passing interests to junkies of political history, but we could include such a graph for any politician or public figure going through some event or another. Whatever logic supports the inclusion of this graph would seem, to me, if followed universally, would lead to every public figure's article being littered with popularity graphs. I just don't see it. 98.71.252.15 (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There are actually three charts, 1996-1996, 1997-2000, and 2001-present. They are included because they are very revealing about public attitudes towards Clinton. Her yellow line (no opinion) gets very small in a hurry, which shows that people became quickly opinionated about her. By the time of Hillarycare and after, opinion is equally divided about her - graphically illustrating the polarization that one of the text sections talks about. Her rating goes way up during the Lewinsky scandal, then comes back down when she decides to enter electoral politics. It edges up a bit during her time in the Senate, then becomes volatile during her presidential bid. Then it goes way up during her current tenure as Secretary of State (I need to update the most recent polls on this).

Whether to do this for other articles or not is an editorial choice that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. The John McCain article has the same chart, but the lines take a very different shape, showing that he had consistently high approval ratings but also a lot of 'no opinions', until his 2008 presidential campaign began. The George W. Bush article has a chart showing his job approval ratings, which immediately conveys the effect 9/11 and the Iraq War had but the downward slope overall. Governorship of Mitt Romney is another article that has a chart showing job approval rating. On the other hand, a lot of political figures don't have enough published polls to make a chart worthwhile, or don't have enough national visibility for the polls to say much. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The diplomatic record

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during the current mandate visited 100 countries! None of its predecessor has been in more than 96 countries.78.3.217.230 (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to say here, this was added: "In June 2012, Clinton visited her 100th country during her tenure, setting a mark for secretaries of state.[318]" Wasted Time R (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Highly un-true account of why Hilary changed from Republican to Democrat. It states here that the Republican party was racist. Reality check was that the Democrats were the ones fighting to keep slavery alive, while the Republican party fought against it. As a result of the slaves been set free by the Republicans, the Democratic party has continually spread propaganda accusing the right of doing what the left has done. It is demonstrated here by the reason Hilary changed parties was because of racism. She left the party because she became involved with Democrats. Those are the facts. Not a bunch of colorful propaganda. Please exchange-- Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami. However, she was upset by how Richard Nixon's campaign portrayed Rockefeller and by what she perceived as the convention's "veiled" racist messages, and left the Republican Party for good.[23]And exchange for Hilary left the Republican party when she became friendly with young Democrats.

Moniquevargas (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done:. The article says that Clinton felt the Republicans were racist, and a source for that opinion is given. RudolfRed (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Should the image be changed to a more recent one?

The one used is from 2009. Perhaps this one from 2012: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Msc2012_20120204_006_Clinton_SZwez.jpg Haosd (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The usual guideline for articles on U.S. politicians or office holders is to use the most recent 'official' (formally posed) photo for the top image. Which the 2009 one is. But since Hillary changes hairstyles, that has often led to an image that no longer represents how she currently looks (the same thing happened while she was a Senator, and it would have happened when she was First Lady too if WP had been around then). I don't think the one your propose quite looks formal enough, but if you can find another one that comes close, we could consider using that. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Then would any of these other ones from 2012 (cropped first, of course) be acceptable? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_in_2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haosd (talk • contribs) 11:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not really, the one you picked was probably the best of the lot, although http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Msc2012_20120204_236_Konferenz_Kai_Moerk.jpg might be good for later in the article. You can also try looking through the Department of State photo gallery at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/c27657.htm. Some of them are State Dept images and thus usable (others are wire service photos and are not, if you hover the mouse over them it will tell). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 September 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to add that Hilary Clinton is funded by LTTE as per Asian Tribune and also Defence Lanka.පාඨලී චම්පික රණවක (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is already dealt with in the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article, "Fundraising" section, "Campaign finance irregularities" subsection: "In December 2007, the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence and the Canada Free Press reported that one of Clinton's fundraisers in New Jersey, a U.S. resident who was associated with a December 12 fundraising event at the State Theatre in New Brunswick, New Jersey, was also a fundraiser for the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization,[85][86] which the U.S. government has determined[87] is a front organization for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam,[88] which is on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.[89] In February 2008, Hillary Clinton's foreign policy adviser, Andrew Shapiro, announced that the Clinton campaign had returned the T.R.O. donations after complaints of impropriety given the outlawed T.R.O.'s terrorist links [87][90]" That's the appropriate article for this material; it's too minor to include in this main biography article. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done:, as it belongs into the other article. Plus, it's likely going to be controversial here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 22 October 2012

Reference 128 is out of date, the link moved. Please use this one: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19960302/NEWS/303029971

68.230.142.15 (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the spot and the fix. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fix broken link External links, CongLinks, parameter s/b washpo = gIQA1F624O 184.78.81.245 (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move x

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton – Common name. WP:UCN is the policy on people naming conventions. I have provided the top relevant news items for "Hillary" in Google News for the past ~~four~~ ~~six~~ ~~seven~~ ~~eight~~ nine (I turned up more in my archive) weeks. Hillary Clinton: [2] [3] [4] [5] [http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/eleanor-roosevelt-talked-to-hillary-this-week/] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] goo.gl/f4odw (examiner) [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39][40][41][42][43][44][45] [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]

Rodham Clinton: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]

Both: [74] [75] [76] [77]. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. She has been steadily de-Rodhamizing over the years, according to this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose. How many times do we have to go through this? This has been discussed many times, and subjected to formal Request for Moves three times, always rejected. See here and here and here for those discussions. The last one was only a year ago. "Rodham" is the last name that she was born with and used even after marriage for a while and that she chooses to keep. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is her official name, see her official Senate page (archived) and her official Secretary of State page and her signature. This was also the name she announced that she preferred when she became First Lady in 1993, see here. The serious media generally always refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton on first mention, see for example any New York Times article, such as this story from a few weeks ago, or see any Washington Post story, such as this one from a few days ago. The Times also uses Hillary Rodham Clinton to title its profile page on her. This is her name, and this is what the article's name should be. Marcus Qwertyus, you were part of the discussion last time. Kauffner, you're making the same 'ngram' argument this time that you did last time (in fact, since the ngram only goes to 2008, it's the identical argument). I'm making the same counterarguments this time that I did last time. So will everyone else. This is like bringing an article up for deletion at AfD over and over again, hoping that a different set of editors show up to give responses and thus hoping for a different result. That's considered bad form and so is this. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not every New York Times and Washington Post article uses the full name as you say. I already posted one NYT and two Washington Post articles above that don't in addition to two two Wall Street Journal pieces. Also a few sentences of your opposition based on it being the "official name" go up against the principles of the common name policy. Preferentiality means nothing. Snoop Dogg can change his official stage name to Snoop Lion but that alone is a worthless rationale to move the page. That doesn't happen until the media regularly starts calling him such. BTW Google Ngram just received a major update so that should re-affirm its accuracy. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Your NYT example is in an opinion blog, which is not as carefully edited as their normal news stories. If you look at this NYT search you will see all the full name references incorporating 'Rodham'. Similarly, your WaPo examples are a video caption and blog, also not edited to their normal standards. Again, I'm focusing on serious sources. If you look at this Department of State search for all their statements, you will see all the full name references incorporating 'Rodham'. You're focusing on celebrity fluff like this and this - well, they also refer to Christina Aguilera as 'Xtina', which is her celebrity shorthand name. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A few clarifications. I was referencing the NYT book review, not the blog. There are actually three WP sources above but I was only referencing the video and the opinion piece. As for the questionable sources, I'm not "focusing" on celebrity-style news reporting, just giving you an unadulterated copy of what I get when I set a weekly "Hillary" Gmail alert for four weeks. If later there are fluff stories referencing her by her full name, they will get added to the list. You alone get to decide how much weight those mean to you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You're still non-responsive to my original point. Nothing has changed in the real world between last year and this year regarding her name or her usage. Why are you re-litigating this again? Why do we need a fourth RfM? Do I have to repeat all the arguments from last year? Why is Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress located at that name? Google News or Google Books searches for it produce a lot less hits than "B-17" or "B-17 Flying Fortress" or "Flying Fortress". Similarly with Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis compared to each of "Jacqueline Kennedy" or "Jackie Kennedy" or in some cases even "Jackie O". In some cases, correctness of name is a criteria along with raw search hits. This is such a case. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am re-initiating the discussion because I believe I can make a more convincing rationale than the former, which only asserted the name was more common with little evidence to back it up. The Flying Fortress article is named as it is because there there is a policy with very specific naming conventions for aircraft. There is no equivalent requirement for persons. Th policy NCP only advises using "the most common format of a name used in reliable sources." As for Mrs. Kennedy, the article was once moved without discussion and has never gone up for a formal requested move. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it more important to give aircraft correct names than people? And even within that form, correctness should prevail. You're a milhist guy, so I'll ask you this - do you think the German fighter plane should be located at "Messerschmitt Me 109", because "Me 109" not "Bf 109" gets more Google News archive and Google Books hits? But Bf 109 is correct, even though less common, and that article is correctly located at Messerschmitt Bf 109. And Hillary Rodham Clinton is correct, and this article is correctly located. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Had I had noticed the discussion I would have opposed it on the grounds that it is completely inconsistent with the principle of common name. I have no comment about whether that specific article is located correctly according to common name, though Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is almost certainly mis-named. The mobile phone articles here do a better job of using the "designer, model convention" when it is common and appropriate (e.g. Samsung Galaxy S III) and not using it when it isn't (e.g. Galaxy Nexus, iPhone 5, Nexus 7 etc.) WikiProject Aircraft's requirements have as little to do with BLPs as they have to do with WikiProject Firearms (M4 carbine, not ArmaLite M4 carbine) and the ground combat vehicles task force (M1 Abrams not Chrysler Defense M1 Abrams). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

BLPs have exceptions too. Diana, Princess of Wales is located there, not at the much more common "Princess Diana". Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is located there, which is pretty much the least common usage for her name. And the article text consistently refers to her as "Catherine", which is formally correct, rather than the much more common "Kate". Teresa Heinz is located there, even though "Teresa Heinz Kerry" gets more Google News archive hits. That's because just "Teresa Heinz" is her correct name. And so on. Wikipedia guidelines are flexible to accommodate individual situations. This naming issue has been around since at least February 2006 and in every Talk discussion and every RfM the decision has been to keep it at Hillary Rodham Clinton. I really object to this being opened up and re-argued again and again and again. We all have better things to do here! Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The royalty and nobility naming conventions were conceived to enhance predictability and consistency–presumably to help out the category maintainers out, among other things. The guideline doesn't apply to any old politician with a desk job. Teresa Heinz Kerry is only preferred marginally more. That could also change when her husband gets less involved in politics. I also only see one brief discussion before it was moved to its current name in 2005. How much do I need to re-iterate again and again and again that the naming policy does not give special treatment for the subjects personal preferences (e.g. Ivory Coast not Côte d'Ivoire).Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We locate all countries under their English name (Italy not "Italia"). Why is Stephen E. Ambrose located there, when a Google News archive search indicates a good deal more hits under "Stephen Ambrose"? Because the former is the name on the cover of the books he wrote. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the name on the cover of her books. This is the name that she uses, and the name that serious sources use when referring to her. Anyway, I'm sure we are not going to be able to convince each other ... and if I fall silent here, it's not because of that, but because I live in central New Jersey and am the target for Hurricane Sandy ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a common misconception. We title countries by their common name in the English language, which may or may not be English. This is why we have articles like Bundeswehr, which is a relatively familiar term in the English language. Côte d'Ivoire is used in a fair number of English sources like AllAfrica.com, Google Maps and some Almanacs, but Ivory Coast is more common overall by a few orders of magnitude. Stay dry! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Support it's now common to refer to her solely as Hillary Clinton. This moving isn't saying that 'Rodham' isn't part of her name, just that her common name is Hillary Clinton. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reasons as in the past. Use her officialn name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Still not a valid reason. The article title policy is strictly against using a name just because it is official. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

See Paul McCartney and Roger Waters, who are actually named James Paul McCartney and George Roger Waters, but we use their common name, not their legal name. Nobody calls her Rodham, its been Hillary Clinton for many, many years.~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Remember that Wikipedia isn't the newspaper: the last four weeks of news coverage are very very far from being a comprehensive sample of all reliable sources' usage. Have you searched non-ephemeral sources, such as books and journals, to confirm that sources by-and-large don't use "Rodham"? Because we're an encyclopedia, we mustn't base our decisions only on the latest sources; even if you prove that the latest sources typically don't use "Rodham", you've failed to prove that the weight of reliable sources also doesn't use it. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Support. Her official name and preferences are irrelevant. She is usually referred to by reliable media sources as simple Hillary Clinton and that is the name we should use. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Support The common name should take precedent over the official name and personal preference. "Hillary Clinton" is how she is best known and most often referred. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose Again and again, for all the reasons Wasted Time R has given. And citing a Google search of the last four weeks is the exact opposite of how we determine the name of an article, as Nyttend states.Tvoz/talk 05:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Like Wasted Time R, I can't discuss this further now due to major hurricane damage at my home, so don't misinterpret silence for acquiescence - this will have to wait. But all of the reasons given when this was litigated several times before still hold. Nothing has changed - all of her official bios use her full, correct name. There of course is a redirect from Hillary Clinton, but the actual article name is correct. Tvoz/talk 00:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. - It is much more common to see her referred to as Hillary Clinton. Drop the Rodham. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Support By the logic of the opposes, the Mitt Romney article should be moved to Willard Mitt Romney. 74.115.210.45 (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is nothing at all like James Paul McCartney or George Roger Waters (no one uses either of those names to refer to those people) or even Willard Mitt Romney (when found in the media, at present, usually used to mock him but certainly not how he is referred to regularly, nor is it his official signature, or his campaign website, or anywhere as his common name so it would be wrong to use that as the article name, at the present time); nor is it the case for the titles of the many other BLPs for people with birth certificate names that are longer than or otherwise different from the name that is the name that they use and the preponderance of sources use. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the official name that is used in all of her bios everywhere from her First Lady bio to her Senate campaign, Presidential campaign, Secy of State site, etc etc etc, and as WTR has explained many times, serious media always use it in their articles as well: it's her name, her signature, and the correct name here. (And a question to the IP: as this is only your second Wikipedia edit under this IP, can we assume you are not also commenting here under a user name? Just want to keep things straight.) Now back to the trees on my house. Tvoz/talk 18:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WP time very infrequent for me - no power and also with on tree on house - but to clarify, the McCartney, Waters, and Romney comparisons are all inapt here because those are cases where people have multiple given names and chose not to use the first of them. Here, 'Rodham' is not a given name - it is her original last name, that she explicitly chooses to keep as part of her married name, and that serious sources use in referring to her. The correct comparisons are to people like Margaret Chase Smith, Coretta Scott King, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, all of whom are located as I've written them and again whom serious sources refer to as such. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose "Hillary Clinton" usage in overall media coverage isn't overwhelming enough and the last 4 weeks isn't an appropriate tiemframe to merit this change. Dreambeaver(talk) 16:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Six weeks actually. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Same point. Tvoz/talk 18:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Support WP:UCN is clear on this, and since most sources use HC, there is no reason why we should use HRC. Kolob1x2 (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that both Kolob1x2 and 74.115.210.45 look like socks of some kind - supposedly "new" users with 20 career edits and 4 career edits respectively that just happen to be interested in lots of FAC and RfM commenting, including both this and the Mitt Romney FAC. Pretty unlikely to be a natural occurrence. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Looks sketchy. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Her official web site self-identifies her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". See http://www.state.gov/secretary Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The argument that we should rename the page based on news articles for the past six weeks, not the past few decades or whatever the total years she has been notable, is making this proposal look like it is solely based on WP:RECENTISM. As Dreambeaver stated above, this is not an appropriate timeframe to merit this change. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't as if she changed her name recently and the media has suddenly en masse changed their conventions based on some recent trend (Underwear Bomber, Octomom etc.) In any case, recent names are preferred or we would be using historical terms like negro or colored to describe the black race. I could have gathered more sources but I'm sure people would be seething at all those extra kilobytes. Seven weeks of sources is an extraordinary amount even for a large scale requested move such as this. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Support. I was very surprised when I found out that this article is titled Hillary Rodham Clinton. By far the most common name used to refer to her is Hillary Clinton. That is undisputable. The main principle is to use the most common name. I haven't yet encountered a Wikipedia guideline that says that the "official" name should be used if there is a much more common name. Thus we have Lady Bird Johnson rather than Claudia Johnson or something similar, Cher rather than Cherilyn Sarkisian, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Lady Bird Johnson self-identified as such, authored her books as such, signed her name as such, and the New York Times refered to her as such. Similarly with Cher. Hillary Rodham Clinton self-identifies as such, authors her books as such, signs her name as such, and the New York Times refers to her as such ... not as Hillary Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

William Shakespeare spelled his name variously during his professional life. Eva Braun changed her name to Eva Hitler before her suicide. And Burma is printed as Myanmar in the New York Times and in all official state documents (though I'd argue the more common Myanmar should be the name of the article). I'm don't why you would make NYT the only authority when other papers like its counterpart, the Wall Street Journal, have chosen other names. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: Wikipedia policy demands to use WP:Common names, not necassarily official ones. Her husband is the best example: Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton. --RJFF (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that Bill Clinton self-identified as such. Compare the author name on the cover of his memoir - File:My Life Bill Clinton.jpg - with the author name on the cover of her memoir - File:Living History.jpg. Serious sources identify him as such - compare this recent Washington Post story on him ("former President Bill Clinton") with this recent Washington Post story on her ("Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton"). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Usually Wikipedia does not follow the self-identification of the subject (WP:Official names) but the one that is the most common in third-party sources (WP:Common names). --RJFF (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, if I may do so as another new user. (I came to the article because of the wave of speculation about her resignation and future plans.) This is a sensitive case because of her history using Rodham vs. Rodham Clinton. As such, it's not our place to decide what her name is. I can see the counter-argument—that if it's not our place, we should err on the side of what the sources say—but feel the subject's wishes should trump journalistic expediency. In Wikipedia-speak, what I'm trying to say is "per Wasted Time R." ETA: And yes, comparisons to people like Lady Bird Johnson or Cher miss the point. However, I'd be happy to discuss the relevance of third-wave feminism... ;-) Rendinan (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Strong support, it's about time this page was simplified to just 'Hillary Clinton'. Who in their right mind refers to her as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'? I've never heard anyone say this out loud. She's now Hillary Clinton, and has been for years. This random article makes no mention of 'Rodham'. The unscientific 'Google Search Test' returns just 12,800,000 results for 'Hillary Rodham Clinton', but 165,000,000 for 'Hillary Clinton'. Move it, once and for all. Crazy Eddy (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

WP articles are not always located at the names people 'say out loud'. When was the last time you heard someone say out loud United States presidential election, 2012 or United States Senate election in New York, 2012? Who says out loud Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010? How many say out loud Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act versus just "ACA" or "Obamacare"? How many people verbally say "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" versus just "Satisfaction"? The 'say out loud' test fails all over the place. As to raw Google web searches, they pick up lots of informal uses, as do Marcus Qwertyus's news feed searches above (which includes a lot of blogs). When you look at books and serious newspapers, you see a different pattern; I don't deny that some of them use 'Hillary Clinton' too, but many use 'Hillary Rodham Clinton', and my position is that with the results this close, we should go with the official name and the name she self-identifies as. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Support. Over the past twelve years or so, it does appear as though common usage has become simply "Hillary Clinton." (I would note that while she was still First Lady and nearer to the beginning of her time as Senator, I recall that was not the case.) Although Google Trends only goes back to 2004, the trend away from including "Rodham" in popular usage is identifiable. Generally speaking, I think the goal for Wikipedia article titles ought to be "simpler is better" (and I think that's actually the goal of most of our guidelines). In this case, the simplest option would appear to be having the article at Hillary Clinton and having Hillary Rodham Clinton simply redirect there. jæs (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Newspapers have ink and column inch constraints. We don't. Walrasiad (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The websites above don't. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of those websites replicate print articles. Walrasiad (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a digital-first, print second world. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong support This is a no-brainer. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia uses "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Overwhelmingly, she is referred to as Hillary Clinton. With all due respect, debating what is obvious is nonsense. Change it already. It's long overdue. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The facts don't support your conclusion - she is not "overwhelmingly" referred to as such. Most news agencies refer to her by her actual name, which is Hillary Rodham Clinton, as do official websites, her signature, etc., not to mention the many articles across this encyclopedia. Tvoz/talk 06:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just using one news archive library for some comparison: 385,194 for the exact phrase "Hillary Rodham Clinton" compared to 587,539 for the exact phrase "Hillary Clinton." I'm not sure I'd call that overwhelming, but I would call it a notable difference. jæs (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

To say that "Most news agencies refer to her by her actual name, which is Hillary Rodham Clinton" is a bunch of malarkey (to quote Joe Biden). There has been an evolution with the use of her name. Yes, many years ago she was regularly referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton. But those days are long gone. The media now uses Hillary Clinton by a wide margin. Current English-language Google News results return about 85,000 for "Hillary Clinton" and 16,000 for "Hillary Rodham Clinton". As I said, overwhelming. This issue is about COMMON usage, not official or professional usage. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You have your facts wrong - it's not "many years ago" at all. "Many years ago" she used the name "Hillary Rodham". She has been known as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" for years, and still is. Here's one cite from yesterday (NYTimes). And one from today (AP). And last week (Washington Post). Oh look, another one from today (AP/Huffington Post). And today again (USA Today). Read Wasted Time R's comment at the top of this thread that has more links from mere weeks ago. These are high quality, top notch sources that always use the Rodham. It's her name, just as Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Claire Boothe Luce are theirs. This is a pointless waste of time - there is no confusion to our readers, no reason to make this change. Can we please move on - this has been up since October 28 - even allowing extra time for those of us who were affected by the hurricane - it's now over two weeks for a 7 day discussion, with no consensus to make this change. There are other things to focus on regarding the improvement of this article, and this is clearly a non-starter. Tvoz/talk 23:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Pulling out a few examples of Rodham being used is a nice attempt at illusion, but it's a trick that never works in Wikipedia discussions. It's been attempted many times; search for what you want to find - in this case Hillary Rodham Clinton - and then cite five examples in the discussion and proclaim, "See, here's the proof!" Haha. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And using propogranda language such as "high quality, top notch sources" only makes your argument seem more desperate. Using over-the-top, invalid comments like that only hurt your cause. We don't rank sources like that and say these sources are better than those sources. One mainstream, reliable source is just as good as any other mainstream, reliable source. So please stop the dramatics and inserting your biased opinions, and focus on the facts. First, no one is claiming that Rodham is NEVER used. The claim is that Hillary Clinton is used far more than Hillary Rodham Clinton. This issue is solely about COMMON, predominant usage, which clearly is Hillary Clinton. For every example you find of Rodham being used in a reliable source, we can find eight that do not. In fact, it's already been done: Current English-language Google News results return about 85,000 for "Hillary Clinton" and 16,000 for "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Oh look, overwhelming usage of Hillary Clinton. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose As per all the reasons that Tvoz, Wasted and others have cited. After so many years, there must be Very Strong reasons to change, and this is wasting all of our time. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Strongly opposing because of "all the reasons" other editors gave, without stating which reasons you are referring to, is weak and inappropriate. And "after so many years" is a totally invalid argument. We don't base editing decisions on time or "very strong" reasons; they are determined by Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and VALID reasons. The valid reason to rename this article Hillary Clinton is obviously because that is clearly and unquestionably her common name, which is what determines article titles. As has already been proven, of all the relatively recent news coverage - approximately 100,000 stories - 84% of them use Hillary Clinton, 16% use Hillary Rodham Clinton. As well, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and CNN all use Hillary Clinton and have done so for many years. And let's stop the repeated, invalid arguments about "official" usage. Wikipedia naming conventions are based on COMMON usage. When having a discussion about her at the office or around the kitchen table, no one in the world says Hillary Rodham Clinton; everyone says Hillary Clinton. Let's get real. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Since your edit history is only 2 weeks long, and you seem to have a keen interest in this rfc, may I ask if you have been editing under a name as well? Tvoz/talk 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Tvoz, I strongly suggest you focus on the issue at hand and educate yourself on WP:HUMAN ! I notice you have a pattern of harassing IPs whenever they disagree with your views, such as this very similar comment you made to 74.115.210.45 at 18:58, 31 October 2012: "And a question to the IP: as this is only your second Wikipedia edit under this IP, can we assume you are not also commenting here under a user name? Just want to keep things straight." Stop your arrogance and condescension. Let this serve as a warning that if I see you again attempting to bully other editors or accusing others of editing under multiple accounts, without any evidence and without following the proper procedure to report it, you will find yourself at AN. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you dial back your insults and threats. I asked a question, politely - no attempt to bully or harass. Please note that Marcus Qwerty, with whom I disagree on the topic of this RFC, and Wasted Time R, with whom I agree, both questioned the other IP's status too. That's what happens here. It has been my observation over 6 years of editing here that new IP editors tend to be scrutinized when they arrive at this kind of procedural matter with apparently more than a passing interest, and more than passing knowledge of policy interpretation, dispute resolution, noticeboards, etc - no matter what their positions are. Tvoz/talk 04:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your "question," which was passive-aggressive and has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed here, was inherently a bullying tactic and nothing more than a failed effort to try and show your superiority over an IP who disagrees with your point of view. And worse, it is a pattern with you. You've done it twice, to two different editors, in this discussion alone. No one cares about your observations over six years, nor does it have any relevance with regard to your unprovoked condescension. Apparently you either did not read WP:HUMAN, do not understand it, or are in complete denial of how inappropriate your behavior is. Stop playing private detective and police officer, and focus on the discussion topic. Again, if you have evidence of someone inappropriately editing, report it in the appropriate manner. Otherwise, you will find yourself at AN. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per wasted time r Hillary Rodham Clinton is her common name - most frequently used by reputable sources Havemeyer (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible image for infobox

If anyone is interested, they could crop this image File:Secretary Clinton With David Novak and Christina Aguilera.jpg and use it for the infobox or elsewhere in the article. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

According to Wikipedia's manual of style guidelines, the lead section should serve as an introduction and summary of the most important aspects of the article's subject. In my opinion, the lead section is too long at present. It does not give a quick overview of the most significant facts, but goes too much into detail. --RJFF (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The key guideline is that the overview should be concise, not quick — and there is a difference. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." Clinton is notable for a lot of things, and looking at the lede it's difficult to find even a single fact or sentence that isn't "standalone" significant to her biography. If you have recommendations for things that should be cut, this section you've started would be as good a place as any to make those suggestions, I'd imagine. But I don't think tagging a Good Article without consensus is necessary (especially given that there have apparently been past discussions on the length of the lede). jæs (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) RJFF, she's had a long career with many different phases, which means there are a lot of significant facts to cover. What are the specific facts in the lead that you think represent too much detail? Remember that a certain percentage of readers never go past the lead, so we want those readers to come away with a good idea of what her life and career has been like. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Almost every politician article has one, but not this one. I don't really see why. BadaBoom (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The good politician articles do not have such sections. That's because experience has shown that separate "Controversies" or "Criticisms" sections are a poor practice that leads to junk accumulation, and are considered a violation of WP:NPOV and multiple other guidelines. In particular, back in 2007 a special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' biographical articles, including this one, of such treatment — see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1#Status of "controversies" pages for the history of that effort — and the same thing was later done for all of the 2012 contenders. In high-quality, GA/FA-level biographies, controversial matters should be discussed in chronology with everything else, where proper context and weighting and balance and understanding can be maintained. That is done in this article; in almost every section, you can find things that Hillary did or didn't do that were considered controversial or brought about criticism, just as in almost every section you can find things she did that were successful or brought about praise. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

BadaBoom, I'm not sure which politicians you are referencing, but it's possible that you are thinking of more local and low-profile representatives who were thrust into national media outlets due to controversial comments. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Order of infobox sections

Every other page I've edited has ordered the internal content of the infoboxes from earliest to latest, top to bottom (for example). I'm not quite sure what the rationale for this page being any different from the rest. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Tvoz's restoration to the 'party'/'otherparty' infobox settings (which is how it had been before Therequiembellishere's first edits of 16 December) makes sense to me. It has to be visually clear that she's a Democrat first and foremost, and that her Republican affiliation was long ago and far away. That leaves the Deputy Secretary list. Until yesterday's edits it had been "William Burns (2011–present)" followed by "James Steinberg (2009–11)". Therequiembellishere insists on both reversing the order and dropping the date ranges. Regardless of what is decided about the order, I think the date ranges need to be there. Otherwise readers may think that there are multiple deputies at the same time, the way there now are for Under Secretaries. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I actually was confused about there being two deputies listed and totally agree that years need to be added. I am not even sure why the deputies are in the infobox at all (I know that's the style in use all over the place), since this is not an article about her tenure as secy of state, but is her biography. Who preceded and succeeded her in the office is of value, but I think the deputies really don't belong here. But I suppose that would have to be a broader conversation, so for now, I say yes add the dates, and I would prefer the current officeholder to be first, as the previous one is just there for its historical significance. Tvoz/talk 03:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Response to the Honduran crisis of 2009-10

The section on Clinton's work as Secretary of State makes no mention of one of the most important roles Clinton played in shaping regional policy for the Americas early in her tenure: her involvement in the US response to the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya from power in 2009. That episode would prove especially notable in that it foreshadowed the State Department's subsequent responses to challenges to governments across the wider Middle East during the Arab Spring uprisings. (Notably, even the subarticle on Clinton's tenure as Sec of State devotes only a single sentence to the Honduran crisis.) Dezastru (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've expanded the treatment in Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State#Regional issues and travels: 2009 to be a pretty lengthy paragraph. See if you think that covers it reasonably well (I confess to not having followed this much at the time). As for incorporation in the main article, I'm willing to in some brief form. But I haven't seen any RS-worthy analyses that tie it to the Arab Spring responses or tie it to her general tenure; can you point me? Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Good job. That's a great start. I haven't seen any RS-worthy analyses of that sort, either; that was just my own opinion. Dezastru (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Miss 007

Sorcha Faal: Clinton Seriously Injured, US Navy Seal Commander Killed In Secret US Diplomatic Mission To Iran [78]

A new Foreign Military Intelligence (GRU) report circulating in the Kremlin is saying that United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was injured, and a top US Navy Seal Commander killed when their C-12 Huron military passenger and transport aircraft crash landed nearly 3 weeks ago in the Iranian city of Ahvaz near the Iraqi border.

Iranian intelligence agents quoted in this GRU report confirm that the C-12 Huron aircraft is still in their possession in Ahvaz, but will only admit that the plane was “forced to land because of technical problems.”

The US Navy Seal member reported killed in this bizarre incident, this report says, was indentified as Commander Job W. Price who as a leader of this highly specialized American Special Forces unit protects high-ranking diplomats traveling in Middle Eastern and Asian combat zones.

Curiously, US media reports on Commander Price’s death say it being investigated as a possible suicide as he died from what the American Defense Department describes as “a non-combat related injury.”

Equally as curious, US media reports state that Secretary Clinton will return to work next week after her having suffered what they describe as a “nasty bout with stomach flu” and a “concussion” which have kept her missing from public view the past three weeks.

This GRU report, however, states that US military flight logs recorded by Russian air and space forces confirm that Commander Price, and other members of US Navy Seal Team 4, left their base in Urozgan Province, Afghanistan on a flight to US Naval Support Activity Bahrain where they met up with Secretary Clinton and all of them transferred to the C-12 Huron that began a flight path to Baghdad, Iraq.

Within minutes of leaving Bahrain airspace, this report says, the C-12 Huron carrying Secretary Clinton and her US Navy Seal protectors, “without notice,” deviated from their assigned flight path heading, instead, directly towards Iran’s Ahwaz International Airport where, coincidentally, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had previously landed on an “unscheduled” visit.

Important to note, GRU analysts say in this report, was that when the C-12 Huron entered into Iranian airspace neither American nor Iran air force units responded clearly indicating that this secret mission was sanctioned.

Upon the C-12 Huron landing at Ahwaz, however, this report says it encountered “extreme turbulence” causing it to leave the runway where its main landing gear then collapsed causing it to crash.

Within seconds of the C-12 Huron crashing, this report continues, Iranian emergency and security personal responded freeing the victims, including Secretary Clinton who was reportedly unconscious and “bleeding profusely.”

After emergency aid was given, GRU agents stationed in Iran state that another US military flight was dispatched from Bahrain to Ahwaz which evacuated all of those wounded and killed in the crash including Secretary Clinton.

Strangely to note, this report says, is that in the aftermath of this crash, Iran’s main oil company announced today that they were buying the Ahwaz airport with the intention of moving it because, they say, oil was discovered beneath it.

To what the Americans mission to Iran was about this report doesn’t speculate upon, other than to note that with the Gulf State Monarchies rapidly approaching a union of their oil rich nations to counter Iranian power, and with President Obama signing a new law this past week to strengthen American borders against threats from Iran, and with the highly-publicized “Velayat 91” Iranian military exercises now taking place across a wide area from the Strait of Hormuz, a new and catastrophic war in this region is much closer to being a reality than many realize.

So if Secretary Clinton’s mission was meant to forestall such a war it is not in our knowing, other than to note, that with the United States continued backing of some of the cruelest dictatorships in the world, our entire planet is but one spark away from a fire that could very well consume us all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.37.25 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to delete this, but it was just too amazing. Also, google +clinton +iran +price +crash for some more reliable sources. Tvoz/talk 02:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's nice to know that the Vast Paranoid Wing Conspiracy is still around and active ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dont be so sure its paranoid nonsense. The public will be told what they want them to know. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty incident, declassified U.S. Government documents show that in the 1960s, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan code-named Operation Northwoods to blow up American airplanes and blame Cuba and so on. I keep an open mind lest I be accused of being a right wing neo fascist or shill. http://www.debka.com/article/22645/Hillary-Clinton-in-hospital-amid-speculation-of-plane-accident-in-Iran. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Article should not have bias and be a propaganda piece of somebody else

She has put into place institutional changes seeking to maximize departmental effectiveness and

This quote above was in the introduction. Stuff in the intro should be profound and completely backed up. It is not. It sounds like mumbo jumbo and self promotion. Wikipedia is harmed when we kow tow to publicists. Hillary is famous and respected and doesn't need fluff to look good.

Let's look at reliable sources that back this up. I used only Google, but I found no flood of CNN or BBC articles that report Clinton efforts to "maximize departmental effectiveness". Even the language used in the WP article looks like a press release. The main sources I see are State Department press releases, which is self serving.

Also note the changes....quote from a press release http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/10/148521.htm

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton approved this plan with the goal of improving and revitalizing the Department’s efforts to enhance U.S. national security by effectively addressing global nuclear, chemical, biological, and conventional weapons threats.

The current Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation (VCI) will become the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance (AVC).

Whoopee! The VCI is now the AVC!

By having a really well written WP article, WP is helped and Hillary doesn't look bad either. By having promotional material included in the lead, WP looks like an advertising agency and people unfairly start to laugh at Hillary. Auchansa (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Behind the scenes, Hillary is pretty good. When there was secret talk of blaming the Libyan killings on the video even though they suspected killers with terrorists links, Secretary Rice was willing to go on the TV talk shows to talk about the video. Hillary had the ethics of refusing to do so because of the risk of egg on her face. Bravo, Hillary. Look what eventually happened to Rice. She did get egg on her face and GOP Senators used that to deny her the State Dept. appointment. In contrast, the GOP couldn't pick on Hillary. Of course, this kind of analysis will have to wait a decade when it appears in someone's memoirs. When that happens, it can be in WP. That sort of stuff helps Hillary, not this mumbo jumbo about helping department effectiveness, which is mostly in potentially self serving State Dept. press releases (WP is suppose to be wary of these...see the guidelines and policies), not in news articles. Auchansa (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Everything in the lead section is a summary of things in the article body; there should be no need for readers to guess, or try to look up on the web, what the lead is referring to. In this case, the lead's statement:

"She has put into place institutional changes seeking to maximize departmental effectiveness and promote the empowerment of women worldwide"

was a summary of this text from the article body:

"Clinton announced the most ambitious of her departmental reforms, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which establishes specific objectives for the State Department's diplomatic missions abroad; it is modeled after a similar process in the Defense Department that she was familiar with from her time on the Senate Armed Services Committee.[293] (The first such review was issued in late 2010 and called for the U.S. leading through "civilian power" as a cost-effective way of responding to international challenges and defusing crises.[294] It also sought to institutionalize goals of empowering women throughout the world.[156])"

So it has nothing to do with arms control. And the three sources are not State Department press releases but CBS News, the Christian Science Monitor, and Newsweek. The reason why it's important is that it's her effort to have an effect on the department not just during her four years there but after she's gone too. Will it? Too soon to tell, but that's why the word seeking is there; it's important to say what she was trying to do in her tenure. That's why, for example, the lead of the Condoleezza Rice article talks about her advocacy of Transformational Diplomacy. But because I guess the association between the lead and the article body wasn't clear, I've reworded the text in the lead to:

"She introduced the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review process, seeking to maximize departmental effectiveness and promote the empowerment of women worldwide"

Now it should be clear what the lead is talking about. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That clarification is much better. However, the problem still exists.

Her term has ended. There are no reliable sources stating that there was significant change. Therefore, that piece of fluff should go. Particularly important, it should be removed from the lede. The part about women did get a bit more coverage so if you insist, I won't say it shouldn't be there.

If years down the road, President Biden closes the State Department and opens up the Department of Foreign Affairs and announced that Hillary's review process is to be given credit for the reorganization, then your idea can certainly be put back in and beefed up.

WP has a term "other crap exists" so if you point me to Condoleezza Rice and point out fluff there, I'll take the same stance that fluff shouldn't be in WP. Auchansa (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just your opinion that this is fluff - in fact, institutionalizing bureaucratic change, if successful, is the exact opposite of fluff - it's the potentially obscure, behind-the-scenes rearrangement of process that has a lasting effect. There was a lot written about the QDDR at the time of the process introduction and the first report, and so mention of it definitely belongs in the article body. Whether it also belongs in the lead is a closer call. This Associated Press/CBS News article from today, says in its third paragraph, "Since taking the helm at the State Department in 2009, overseeing its nearly 70,000 employees, Clinton sought to elevate American 'civilian power' and make the department a better military partner, in part by launching the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. Clinton today said the review process 'enabled us to ask the hard questions.'" On the other hand, a lot of press recaps of her tenure have not mentioned it at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects

[1]