This is an archive of past discussions. 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NOTE: All participants in the following discussion have !voted in the subsequent subsection. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It does make sense that we used the most recent official portrait for an article, such as for Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, for example. But in this case, she is out of office, but running for another office. Because of this, the reader who decides "I'll look up Hillary on Wikipedia" will see a portrait which is 6.5 nearly 7 years old. As an active candidate, actively campaigning, whose appearance has changed significantly (aging, weight) since the time of the portrait, the inclusion of the portrait I added (below) is pertinent. While taken at an event, it is very high resolution, high quality, in focus, and looks very professional (released by campaign), and her facial expression is smiling just like the official portrait. Strictly adhering to a 'official' preferred policy, in this case, detracts from the purpose of the article. While Jimmy Carter may have aged nearly 40 years from his info box portrait, the main purpose of his article is to enlighten over the subject of his life, whose height was a presidency from 1977-1981. But Hillary isn't retired and out of office, she is a current event. We use a 2015 photo of Jeb Bush for these same purposes.
Spartan7W § 03:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
old and fat". Neither do I agree with the view of Medeis that the earlier picture presents an "
artificially posed grimace". I think that it is possible for a picture of a person later in years to show dignity, states(wo)manship and experience. I also think that readers coming to the article right now will likely be doing so in regard to the developing of understandings of a presidential candidate and not of just a former Senator and Secretary of State. I also dispute reference to high point in career and think that her being in a serious contender for the top job in the U.S. and the potential of being the countries first woman president is pretty significant. Personally I think that there are merits in both options but favour the use of well presented current picture. Greg Kaye 07:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The top photo is about 6.5 years old. To ensure good selection of top photos, similar Wikipedia article talk pages include a gallery of options (see Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee). I am not aware that such a gallery has been presented at this talk page, so I'm presenting it below.
As someone mentioned above, the "most recent official portrait as top photo" isn't a rule but rather an informal guideline. It's not commonly followed with respect to current presidential candidates if the picture is so old as this one. It's time for a switch to a current or much more recent one. Feel free to add images to this gallery if they are post-Secretary-of-State. This gallery is not fixed in stone, and new photos can be added that do not even exist yet. However, images should not be a view from below (idolizing), and should not be facing away from the Wikipedia article text.
How about this as an option which conveys a recent photo of a thoughtful person? Perhaps not as dynamic as some of the other options.
I find it hard to believe that option 7 is an official picture because, with the reflected glare of the flash/backlighting in the woodwork, glasses and eyes, etc. it looks, to me, really amateurish. I would prefer a modern photo but the recent photos (collected by Wikipedia) seem of comparatively low quality. Is it possible that we can do better? Greg Kaye 11:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
By my weighted scoring, 2, the status quo ante, has 50.7% as of Spartan7W's !vote. Thus, 49.3% favors a change. Dave Dial says above, "To change the main image on a BLP article there should be consensus. The image is already there, so there would have to be a clear consensus to change it."
I see three potential reasons not to close now with no consensus for change.
Even if it reached a consensus for change, there would need to be a runoff between 1 and 2, and 2 could still win that. The others aren't even in the running at this point, and that's extremely unlikely to change.
Comments? ― Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The Iran deal is highly placed in the current news cycle, and it has been noted in various sources that it was built on a foundation established by Clinton as SOS. Is that worth mentioning here? bd2412 T 14:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: this edit
Given
this RfC consensus, and the corresponding note in {{
Persondata}}
, it would seem less controversial to simply remove the Persondata. Since
WP:BOLD does not apply in this article at this time, I'm discussing first. ―
Mandruss
☎ 06:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Red Slash: You'll note that Lewinsky scandal is the article title, this is not a redirect. If you feel that's POV, please take it up at Talk:Lewinsky scandal with an eye toward a move to something more neutral. Otherwise, simply linking to an article by its title is neutral by definition. Also please don't edit war. And what's with the "pooopface" in your revert? I have reverted that part. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Neutral notice being places on both Talk:Bill Clinton and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton Tarc ( talk) 21:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Professor JR:, I realize presidential campaigns are all in the news, but the place for an extended discussion of a candidate's current favorability ratings, with quotes included from pollsters, is in their campaign article, not in their main BLP article. As it happens the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article does not have anything on this subject, so what you added here should instead be added there.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and the HRC Gallup Poll ratings 1992-2015 chart image in this section has been updated as of last night with the latest figures. So everyone can see that her latest data point has higher negatives than positives. (Refresh your browser cache if you don't see it – it's control-F5 on Firefox for example.) I've been updating this chart (and its predecessors) for seven or eight years now, and it uses Gallup favorability/unfavorability ratings for consistent comparisons within one polling methodology. That's why I don't want to mix in Pew polling numbers.
The text I added in the section is sufficient to the point:
The text you added after that:
goes into unnecessary details and unnecessary quotes. We don't need exact percentages in the text, nor exact dates of polling. This article is about the broad sweep of her life; the chart covers 23 years; and we don't need a lot of attention to any one data point. The campaign article is the place to track detailed campaign developments, not here. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Why adding the Peacock tag to that section? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraph Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hillary Clinton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the religion of him...
http://www.ncscooper.com/hillary-clinton-converts-to-scientology/
She converts to scientology religion. 187.44.92.33 ( talk) 11:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
When the article was originally protected for 2 weeks, it was in the middle of an edit war. By chance, it was protected in a state where it said "Hillary Clinton" in the infobox. However, the state prior to the dispute was "Hillary Rodham Clinton". If there is no consensus to change, then that would mean there was no consensus to change from "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Omnedon ( talk) 23:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Sandstein has clarified his meaning at ANI. Basically: no consensus. Per WP:NO CONSENSUS we stick with the status quo ante (HRC, which was the heading for years until some editors began an edit war to force a change, which precipitated the RFC) until a consensus for change emerges. I have restored HRC as the infobox heading. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The word "first" appears 147 times in this article. Is that a record? Agcala ( talk) 19:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
My bold edit was reverted by Tvoz and I was directed to previous discussions. In addition to what I believe were improvements to grammar and sentence structure, I moved the email controversy sections to the bottom of the U.S. Secretary of State section, where it seems to belong - (see this version [1])
I'm puzzling over the reasoning for having an oddball miscellaneous section called Clinton Foundation, e-mails issue, and other activities. (sort of like "Monkey, grapefruits, and things found on a Chevrolet", to my ears). This was previously discussed here Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 25#Location and section header relative to emails controversy. I'm pinging Wasted_Time_R and Scjessey who were involved in this previous discussion. From a reader's perspective, I find it jarring to read about this relatively major controversy outside of the context of the part of Mrs. Clinton's career in which it happened. - Mr X 19:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In March 2015, Clinton's practice of using her own private e-mail address and server during her time as Secretary of State, in lieu of State Department servers, gained widespread public attention. Concerns were raised about security and preservation of e-mails, and the possibility that laws may have been violated. After the inspectors general of the U.S. intelligence community and the State Department contradicted Clinton's assertion that no classified information had been present on her server, she turned over the e-mail server an to the Department of Justice. The Clintons had personally paid a State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano, to maintain Clinton's private e-mail server while she was Secretary of State. Upon being subpoenaed by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Pagliano invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before the committee.
Article talk pages are not a platform for anonymous whinges that have nothing to do with editing in this project. Tarc ( talk) 23:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I always thought that Wikipedia was to be an encyclopedia! This article shows Wikipedia's bias and double standard of article writing and editing. The entire first section (four paragraphs are uncited. The article has too few citations and references to back it up. This BLP article should be nearly perfect and cited/referenced up the gazoo due to the subject seeking the democratic nomination for POTUS. The article reads like a political pamphlet from the earliest days of the 20th century. (I will allow others to decipher that statement themselves.)
|
Content regarding the discovery of classified information on Hillary's email server was reverted with the statement that it's not supported by sources. The discovery of classified information and the potential legal implications are arguably the most salient aspects of the situation and have been extremely widely covered by reliable sources. Adding POV tag. CFredkin ( talk) 20:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
[2] According to this article about a new book about the Secret Service, Ms Clinton is not very nice to the help. Add to the article? Cla68 ( talk) 09:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This edit [3]] is a cherry-picked polling data point, and it is WP:UNDUE without other polling data being used in that section. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should The Hillary Clinton BLP article mention the national polling results that 61% of respondents consider her to be untrustworthy, and that the most commonly used word to describe her was liar. (wording, placement TBD)
Poll Primary Source : http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274
Secondary sources : [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
Muboshgu The lead sentence of
WP:UNDUE says Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources
. There are many many sources that have used this poll and the liar association. What proportion of sources discredit the poll in the fashion that you imply?
Gaijin42 (
talk) 20:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It's interesting that some of the same editors who've spent prolonged periods camped at Fiorina's biography insisting that every negative opinion about Carly be inserted there are the first to run to this RfC and argue that any negative information be purged. If someone manages to get mentioned in a reliable source saying: "Carly is the worst <insert noun here>", you say it must be included in her bio because it's from a reliable source after all. After weeks of watching you push that line at Carly, I attempt to insert something negative about Hillary that indicates the impressions of a statistically significant sample of registered voters and that's out of line. I know, that's Carly's bio and this is Hillary's bio so we shouldn't be talking about Carly here. But you can't really expect us to believe that you're editing in good faith and in the best interests of the project when you consistently argue that different standards be applied at bios depending on the politician's party. Shame on you. CFredkin ( talk) 23:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. How about...
This edit at Fiorina where you restored the text saying of HP's partnership with Apple: "The project was considered a major success for Apple and a failure for HP." near the top of the section;
or this edit at Fiorina where you wanted to make sure the following phrase appeared at the top of the section on Fiorina's image: "Following her resignation from HP, several commentators ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time." as well as insisting that we say that "Fiorina and her husband lived in a 5,400-square-foot mansion" and that Boxer's campaign attacks regarding Fiorina's yachts be included;
or how about this lovely at Fiorina where you restored the following statement: "You couldn’t pick a worse, non-imprisoned CEO to be your standard-bearer." CFredkin ( talk) 00:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The lede should not be slanted to recent events. It should be a chronological presentation of this person's biography. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hillary Clinton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PLEASE UPDATE THIS COLOR CORRECTED IMAGE OF
108.54.119.29 ( talk) 03:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hillary Clinton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please use the color corrected image. Current one is too Green/ Cyan.
Tedjasukmana ( talk) 04:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
it doesnt seem like her hypothyroidism (fairly major mood altering disease) is mentioned anywhere in the wiki... http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/31/us-usa-election-clinton-health-idUSKCN0Q52BA20150731 can somebody add this? 74.197.131.45 ( talk) 16:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Professor JR: Is there some reason why this article suddenly earned an advert tag? If there is purely promotional content in the article it should be removed.- Mr X 15:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
How many reliable sources need to report on the FBI investigation of Clinton's handling of classified information before it's worthy of inclusion in this article? CFredkin ( talk) 20:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The lead of the main article on the controversy is a summary of that article per WP:LEDE, and a good summary here per WP:SUMMARY. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
As someone once said: "At this point, what difference does it make?" --- Professor JR ( talk) 21:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Reports of the FBI investigation are well and widely-sourced. I don't understand why it wouldn't be mentioned here. CFredkin ( talk) 01:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess I should've seen this coming. Faced with a consensus to use a cited version of the lede from Hillary Clinton email controversy here, ProfessorJR is now attempting to change the lede there, presumably to then echo the change here. Pretty shameless. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The reality is that the FBI is not conducting an formal investigation. It is a probe focused broadly on how possible classified material was handled. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Misleading edit summaries are unacceptable, and so is stuffing negative quotes into references. Moreover, this article is about Hillary Clinton, so editors should not be trying to shoehorn negative POV aimed at the Bill Clinton administration into it. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillary Clinton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why is Hillary Clinton leaving out 'Rodham'? "Her campaign has told the Washington Post that she prefers to be just Hillary Clinton. Why?" Because Wikipedians left out 'Rodham'? I'm not sure we'll ever have a definitive answer to this question. Wbm1058 ( talk) 02:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The sexist, right wing organization that calls itself the Associated Press have decided to drop "Rodham" when writing about her [20] Calidum T| C 18:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
|
I have added the above information to the note on the subject's name. At this point, I would actually suggest having a separate article on this, as the note itself is both longer and more fully cited than many articles I have seen. bd2412 T 22:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NOTE: All participants in the following discussion have !voted in the subsequent subsection. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It does make sense that we used the most recent official portrait for an article, such as for Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, for example. But in this case, she is out of office, but running for another office. Because of this, the reader who decides "I'll look up Hillary on Wikipedia" will see a portrait which is 6.5 nearly 7 years old. As an active candidate, actively campaigning, whose appearance has changed significantly (aging, weight) since the time of the portrait, the inclusion of the portrait I added (below) is pertinent. While taken at an event, it is very high resolution, high quality, in focus, and looks very professional (released by campaign), and her facial expression is smiling just like the official portrait. Strictly adhering to a 'official' preferred policy, in this case, detracts from the purpose of the article. While Jimmy Carter may have aged nearly 40 years from his info box portrait, the main purpose of his article is to enlighten over the subject of his life, whose height was a presidency from 1977-1981. But Hillary isn't retired and out of office, she is a current event. We use a 2015 photo of Jeb Bush for these same purposes.
Spartan7W § 03:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
old and fat". Neither do I agree with the view of Medeis that the earlier picture presents an "
artificially posed grimace". I think that it is possible for a picture of a person later in years to show dignity, states(wo)manship and experience. I also think that readers coming to the article right now will likely be doing so in regard to the developing of understandings of a presidential candidate and not of just a former Senator and Secretary of State. I also dispute reference to high point in career and think that her being in a serious contender for the top job in the U.S. and the potential of being the countries first woman president is pretty significant. Personally I think that there are merits in both options but favour the use of well presented current picture. Greg Kaye 07:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The top photo is about 6.5 years old. To ensure good selection of top photos, similar Wikipedia article talk pages include a gallery of options (see Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee). I am not aware that such a gallery has been presented at this talk page, so I'm presenting it below.
As someone mentioned above, the "most recent official portrait as top photo" isn't a rule but rather an informal guideline. It's not commonly followed with respect to current presidential candidates if the picture is so old as this one. It's time for a switch to a current or much more recent one. Feel free to add images to this gallery if they are post-Secretary-of-State. This gallery is not fixed in stone, and new photos can be added that do not even exist yet. However, images should not be a view from below (idolizing), and should not be facing away from the Wikipedia article text.
How about this as an option which conveys a recent photo of a thoughtful person? Perhaps not as dynamic as some of the other options.
I find it hard to believe that option 7 is an official picture because, with the reflected glare of the flash/backlighting in the woodwork, glasses and eyes, etc. it looks, to me, really amateurish. I would prefer a modern photo but the recent photos (collected by Wikipedia) seem of comparatively low quality. Is it possible that we can do better? Greg Kaye 11:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
By my weighted scoring, 2, the status quo ante, has 50.7% as of Spartan7W's !vote. Thus, 49.3% favors a change. Dave Dial says above, "To change the main image on a BLP article there should be consensus. The image is already there, so there would have to be a clear consensus to change it."
I see three potential reasons not to close now with no consensus for change.
Even if it reached a consensus for change, there would need to be a runoff between 1 and 2, and 2 could still win that. The others aren't even in the running at this point, and that's extremely unlikely to change.
Comments? ― Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The Iran deal is highly placed in the current news cycle, and it has been noted in various sources that it was built on a foundation established by Clinton as SOS. Is that worth mentioning here? bd2412 T 14:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: this edit
Given
this RfC consensus, and the corresponding note in {{
Persondata}}
, it would seem less controversial to simply remove the Persondata. Since
WP:BOLD does not apply in this article at this time, I'm discussing first. ―
Mandruss
☎ 06:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Red Slash: You'll note that Lewinsky scandal is the article title, this is not a redirect. If you feel that's POV, please take it up at Talk:Lewinsky scandal with an eye toward a move to something more neutral. Otherwise, simply linking to an article by its title is neutral by definition. Also please don't edit war. And what's with the "pooopface" in your revert? I have reverted that part. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Neutral notice being places on both Talk:Bill Clinton and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton Tarc ( talk) 21:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Professor JR:, I realize presidential campaigns are all in the news, but the place for an extended discussion of a candidate's current favorability ratings, with quotes included from pollsters, is in their campaign article, not in their main BLP article. As it happens the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article does not have anything on this subject, so what you added here should instead be added there.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and the HRC Gallup Poll ratings 1992-2015 chart image in this section has been updated as of last night with the latest figures. So everyone can see that her latest data point has higher negatives than positives. (Refresh your browser cache if you don't see it – it's control-F5 on Firefox for example.) I've been updating this chart (and its predecessors) for seven or eight years now, and it uses Gallup favorability/unfavorability ratings for consistent comparisons within one polling methodology. That's why I don't want to mix in Pew polling numbers.
The text I added in the section is sufficient to the point:
The text you added after that:
goes into unnecessary details and unnecessary quotes. We don't need exact percentages in the text, nor exact dates of polling. This article is about the broad sweep of her life; the chart covers 23 years; and we don't need a lot of attention to any one data point. The campaign article is the place to track detailed campaign developments, not here. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Why adding the Peacock tag to that section? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraph Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hillary Clinton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the religion of him...
http://www.ncscooper.com/hillary-clinton-converts-to-scientology/
She converts to scientology religion. 187.44.92.33 ( talk) 11:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
When the article was originally protected for 2 weeks, it was in the middle of an edit war. By chance, it was protected in a state where it said "Hillary Clinton" in the infobox. However, the state prior to the dispute was "Hillary Rodham Clinton". If there is no consensus to change, then that would mean there was no consensus to change from "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Omnedon ( talk) 23:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Sandstein has clarified his meaning at ANI. Basically: no consensus. Per WP:NO CONSENSUS we stick with the status quo ante (HRC, which was the heading for years until some editors began an edit war to force a change, which precipitated the RFC) until a consensus for change emerges. I have restored HRC as the infobox heading. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The word "first" appears 147 times in this article. Is that a record? Agcala ( talk) 19:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
My bold edit was reverted by Tvoz and I was directed to previous discussions. In addition to what I believe were improvements to grammar and sentence structure, I moved the email controversy sections to the bottom of the U.S. Secretary of State section, where it seems to belong - (see this version [1])
I'm puzzling over the reasoning for having an oddball miscellaneous section called Clinton Foundation, e-mails issue, and other activities. (sort of like "Monkey, grapefruits, and things found on a Chevrolet", to my ears). This was previously discussed here Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 25#Location and section header relative to emails controversy. I'm pinging Wasted_Time_R and Scjessey who were involved in this previous discussion. From a reader's perspective, I find it jarring to read about this relatively major controversy outside of the context of the part of Mrs. Clinton's career in which it happened. - Mr X 19:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In March 2015, Clinton's practice of using her own private e-mail address and server during her time as Secretary of State, in lieu of State Department servers, gained widespread public attention. Concerns were raised about security and preservation of e-mails, and the possibility that laws may have been violated. After the inspectors general of the U.S. intelligence community and the State Department contradicted Clinton's assertion that no classified information had been present on her server, she turned over the e-mail server an to the Department of Justice. The Clintons had personally paid a State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano, to maintain Clinton's private e-mail server while she was Secretary of State. Upon being subpoenaed by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Pagliano invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before the committee.
Article talk pages are not a platform for anonymous whinges that have nothing to do with editing in this project. Tarc ( talk) 23:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I always thought that Wikipedia was to be an encyclopedia! This article shows Wikipedia's bias and double standard of article writing and editing. The entire first section (four paragraphs are uncited. The article has too few citations and references to back it up. This BLP article should be nearly perfect and cited/referenced up the gazoo due to the subject seeking the democratic nomination for POTUS. The article reads like a political pamphlet from the earliest days of the 20th century. (I will allow others to decipher that statement themselves.)
|
Content regarding the discovery of classified information on Hillary's email server was reverted with the statement that it's not supported by sources. The discovery of classified information and the potential legal implications are arguably the most salient aspects of the situation and have been extremely widely covered by reliable sources. Adding POV tag. CFredkin ( talk) 20:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
[2] According to this article about a new book about the Secret Service, Ms Clinton is not very nice to the help. Add to the article? Cla68 ( talk) 09:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This edit [3]] is a cherry-picked polling data point, and it is WP:UNDUE without other polling data being used in that section. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should The Hillary Clinton BLP article mention the national polling results that 61% of respondents consider her to be untrustworthy, and that the most commonly used word to describe her was liar. (wording, placement TBD)
Poll Primary Source : http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274
Secondary sources : [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
Muboshgu The lead sentence of
WP:UNDUE says Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources
. There are many many sources that have used this poll and the liar association. What proportion of sources discredit the poll in the fashion that you imply?
Gaijin42 (
talk) 20:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It's interesting that some of the same editors who've spent prolonged periods camped at Fiorina's biography insisting that every negative opinion about Carly be inserted there are the first to run to this RfC and argue that any negative information be purged. If someone manages to get mentioned in a reliable source saying: "Carly is the worst <insert noun here>", you say it must be included in her bio because it's from a reliable source after all. After weeks of watching you push that line at Carly, I attempt to insert something negative about Hillary that indicates the impressions of a statistically significant sample of registered voters and that's out of line. I know, that's Carly's bio and this is Hillary's bio so we shouldn't be talking about Carly here. But you can't really expect us to believe that you're editing in good faith and in the best interests of the project when you consistently argue that different standards be applied at bios depending on the politician's party. Shame on you. CFredkin ( talk) 23:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. How about...
This edit at Fiorina where you restored the text saying of HP's partnership with Apple: "The project was considered a major success for Apple and a failure for HP." near the top of the section;
or this edit at Fiorina where you wanted to make sure the following phrase appeared at the top of the section on Fiorina's image: "Following her resignation from HP, several commentators ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time." as well as insisting that we say that "Fiorina and her husband lived in a 5,400-square-foot mansion" and that Boxer's campaign attacks regarding Fiorina's yachts be included;
or how about this lovely at Fiorina where you restored the following statement: "You couldn’t pick a worse, non-imprisoned CEO to be your standard-bearer." CFredkin ( talk) 00:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The lede should not be slanted to recent events. It should be a chronological presentation of this person's biography. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hillary Clinton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PLEASE UPDATE THIS COLOR CORRECTED IMAGE OF
108.54.119.29 ( talk) 03:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hillary Clinton has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please use the color corrected image. Current one is too Green/ Cyan.
Tedjasukmana ( talk) 04:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
it doesnt seem like her hypothyroidism (fairly major mood altering disease) is mentioned anywhere in the wiki... http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/31/us-usa-election-clinton-health-idUSKCN0Q52BA20150731 can somebody add this? 74.197.131.45 ( talk) 16:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Professor JR: Is there some reason why this article suddenly earned an advert tag? If there is purely promotional content in the article it should be removed.- Mr X 15:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
How many reliable sources need to report on the FBI investigation of Clinton's handling of classified information before it's worthy of inclusion in this article? CFredkin ( talk) 20:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The lead of the main article on the controversy is a summary of that article per WP:LEDE, and a good summary here per WP:SUMMARY. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
As someone once said: "At this point, what difference does it make?" --- Professor JR ( talk) 21:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Reports of the FBI investigation are well and widely-sourced. I don't understand why it wouldn't be mentioned here. CFredkin ( talk) 01:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess I should've seen this coming. Faced with a consensus to use a cited version of the lede from Hillary Clinton email controversy here, ProfessorJR is now attempting to change the lede there, presumably to then echo the change here. Pretty shameless. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The reality is that the FBI is not conducting an formal investigation. It is a probe focused broadly on how possible classified material was handled. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Misleading edit summaries are unacceptable, and so is stuffing negative quotes into references. Moreover, this article is about Hillary Clinton, so editors should not be trying to shoehorn negative POV aimed at the Bill Clinton administration into it. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillary Clinton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why is Hillary Clinton leaving out 'Rodham'? "Her campaign has told the Washington Post that she prefers to be just Hillary Clinton. Why?" Because Wikipedians left out 'Rodham'? I'm not sure we'll ever have a definitive answer to this question. Wbm1058 ( talk) 02:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The sexist, right wing organization that calls itself the Associated Press have decided to drop "Rodham" when writing about her [20] Calidum T| C 18:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
|
I have added the above information to the note on the subject's name. At this point, I would actually suggest having a separate article on this, as the note itself is both longer and more fully cited than many articles I have seen. bd2412 T 22:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)