![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
The following statement was just added:
"Political Compass scores Clinton's political positions as far-right, mid-authoritarian, as of the 2016 presidential election cycle."
This struck me as sufficiently odd that I looked at their positioning, and by their standards, essentially *everyone* except Bernie Sanders qualifies as right-wing authoritarian. This strikes me as somewhat not
WP:NPOV. Do we regard Political Compass as a reliable source?
Tarl.Neustaedter (
talk)
02:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
One recurring problem on determining who is right, center, or left is that the subject of the political spectrum has differing definitions since the 18th century and significant differences between political systems or historical eras. For example, right-wing politics in 18th and 19th century France largely had to do with political factions consisting of "traditional conservatives, monarchists and reactionaries". Just about every American political faction would be considered "left" in comparison to them, because Americans did not favor absolute monarchy, hereditary nobility, or a powerful church. But nowadays Gaullism, a traditional ideology of the French right, is devoted to republicanism. The political system changed and the spectrum changed with it. Dimadick ( talk) 19:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the reference should be removed unless it's mentioned by a reliable secondary source, as an indicator of validity and notability. CFredkin ( talk) 17:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Anti-Clinton/Justice Dept rant by drive-by IP editor that does not address article improvement. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why does the top of the talk page say "Even though this page is not a biography..." etc etc.? This plainly is a biography. It's an article, about the life and characteristics of Hillary Clinton, and is titled "Hillary Clinton." It seems that that note is not necessary, or maybe replace it with a more fitting tag. Hobbes Novakoff ( talk) 03:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Should current and recent candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election include politician among their notable occupations in the lead of their biographical articles, even if the candidate eschews the term? Please participate in a new Request for Comment on this question. General Ization Talk 12:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed language that put the email controversy into the already overlong introduction because (a) it adversely changes the neutrality of the introduction, and (b) it assigns too much weight to a thing that is unresolved and may yet amount to nothing. Without respect for the WP:BRD process, this was then reverted. With a controversial edit of this nature, I believe it is incumbent upon the editor adding the material to win a consensus for doing so on this talk page. -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Here in italics is the language that I inserted in my last article edit:
“ | She used social media to communicate the U.S. message abroad, and an unresolved controversy continues about her use of a private server instead of government servers for official email communication. | ” |
This seems like a modest mention, considering that there's a huge subsection about this later in the BLP. We don't wait for controversies to be fully resolved before mentioning them in a lead, if reliable sources have been providing extensive coverage for a long time (e.g. the allegations against Dennis Hastert have been in the lead of that article for many months, and rightly so). Anyone who thinks there has been more coverage of Hillary Clinton's use of social media to communicate the U.S. message abroad than coverage of the email issue is dreaming. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Washington Post: “Her decision to exclusively use a private e-mail account while secretary suggests she made a deliberate decision to shield her messages from scrutiny. It was a mistake that reflects poor judgment about a public trust.”
New York Times: “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s decision when she was secretary of state to use only her personal email account to conduct official business was a disturbing departure from the normal practice of relying primarily on departmental emails for official business.”
Charlotte Observer: “Clinton isn’t the first to use private email, but her failure to disclose massive batches is troubling. … But key issues remain unclear. What about her private-account emails to representatives of foreign governments? What about emails to U.S. officials on their private or government accounts?”
Wall Street Journal: “The real story here is that none of this is a surprise. This is how the Clintons roll. They’re a political version of the old Peanuts cartoon character who was always surrounded by a cloud of dirt. Ethical shortcuts and controversies are standard operating procedure.” Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The criterion for including allegations of wrong=doing is not whether they are true but whether they are considered significant in reliable sources about the subject. The artcle on Richard Nixon for example mentions Watergate even though Nixon was never indicted or convicted of any offense. The emails are an election issue, Clinton was asked about them in the first presidential debate for example. TFD ( talk) 15:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Anythingyouwant: Please explain how I lack "credibility" exactly? And please also explain how I'm not "doing anything to shorten the lead" when that is precisely what I have begun to do in initiating this discussion? Please don't diminish my efforts just because I started with a specific thing you evidently disagree with. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
agree with the no-lead group for now. Watergate is very coupled with Nixon's long term reputation and biography. It remains to be seen if that is the case for Clinton. Certainly it is a major issue for the election. It is properly mentioned in the lead of the election article. If this issue ultimately results in her being indicted (or recommendation for indictment from the FBI), or losing the nomination, or losing the election (as linked by major reliable sources) then it would ultimately be the end of her political career, and would be worthy for her BLP lead at that time. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Should Clinton's use of a private server for her government-related emails, rather than the U.S. government server, be included in the lead of this article Here is link to the disputed text. TFD ( talk) 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
As secretary of state, Clinton used a private server for her government-related emails, rather than the U.S. government server. There is currently a police investigation to determine whether her actions were in violation of federal law. TFD ( talk) 17:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu opposes inclusion in the lead on the basis that Powell and Rice both had the same set up. In fact they did not. On a handful of occasions each used a private email account rather than their government email, but it was only mentioned in mainstream media as part of the coverage of the Clinton email story. What coverage if any it deserves in those articles should be discussed in those articles. The significance of information to any article is determined by the weight it is provided in reliable sources, not the fairness of the relative coverage of information in reliable sources. TFD ( talk) 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Wasted Time R ( talk · contribs), lots of stuff that Hillary Clinton has done is lead-worthy even though it clearly involved no criminal behavior on her part. Why assume the email thing is only lead-worthy if it was indictable? Lots of sources say it showed very poor judgment even apart from illegality. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL.
Established professional journalistic practice, per style manuals of the AP, NYT, ad infinitum, is to render a subject's name in that indivual prefers such as often in her/his signature, etc. Thus it is WP's practice to render this in the header to the infobox when it conflicts with the shortened form the subject is generally known to the public by (as in wp:Common name); eg see Template:Infobox person (regarding middle initials): " If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the birth_name field, include them here."-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
In a similar fashion to the email controversy, I removed this segment from the introduction which (most likely) refers to her Goldman Sachs speeches because: it adversely changes the neutrality of the introduction, and it assigns too much weight to something that is irrelevant to both her career and her biography (much more so than the email controversy at that). I removed it twice and made a point the second time that it had no relevance to her career or life but it got readded both times without any explanation as to why; so I believe it is mandatory for the user or anyone who thinks it should be left there to win a consensus in this talk page for that segment to remain in the lead. Narciso003 ( talk) 15:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Include. Here's what the BLP says below the lead:
“ | She began work on another volume of memoirs, and began making appearances on the paid speaking circuit, receiving about $200,000 per engagement, as well as making some unpaid speeches on behalf of the foundation.[404] For the fifteen months ending in March 2015, Clinton earned over $11 million from her speeches....As of 2015, she was estimated to be worth over $30 million on her own.... | ” |
So over a third of her net worth was from speeches given for hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. And her speeches have been in the lead for a long time. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment It's clear to me that this is only noteworthy insofar as her political opponents have made it a campaign issue. The removal was appropriate and this does not belong in the lede any more than Pres. Reagan's paid speeches belong in his. If any editor feels strongly that this should be mentioned in the lede, I suggest that such editor launch an RfC so that the matter can be put to rest. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see the updated editnotice for current sanctions, and heed the instructions. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Coffee The edit warning appears, but the notice at the top of the page just mentions normal DS in the politics area, not any specifically applied sanction. Additionally, the notices you sent to my and others pages is just the standard DS notice and does not mention the specific restriction. If editors are going to be sanctioned based on this new rule, communication of that rule needs to be made much more clearly. Gaijin42 ( talk) 00:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
A tag has been placed atop the BLP saying that the lead is too long. So, I gave brief descriptions instead of full names of three federal programs that she helped create. The lead was about this long when the article attained featured status in 2014, so I don't think it's way too long. I would, however, delete this sentence: "Clinton viewed 'smart power' as the best strategy for projecting U.S. influence, by combining military power with diplomacy and capabilities in economics, technology, and other areas." As described later in the BLP, Clinton has described the Libya military intervention as a case study in "smart power" which suggests that the term is amorphous, and indeed we quote David Ignatius as saying the term is vapid and overused. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's any consensus to remove this from the lead:
“ | Hillary Rodham grew up in the Chicago area. She attended Wellesley College, graduating in 1969. She then earned a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. | ” |
So I'll restore it. This seems very apt for the lead. There does seem to be consensus to remove the sentence about "smart power". Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Over the past few days, I have shortened the lead. It's down to 484 words from 588 words, according to my word counter. Similar shortening could be done to the rest of the article, I think. My only criticisms of the lead at this point are that it should briefly say something like "she was criticized for using a private email server", and should mention that the Libya intervention was "without congressional authorization" (my reasons were already discussed at this talk page). Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 12:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I'm okay with most of these changes, but not some, for these reasons:
It's also worth noting that for many readers, this lead is all they will look at of this (or any) article. Giving the best summary of her career is more important than tersifying it. I've never seen or heard of a "real" reader (not another editor) complain about any lead in WP being too long. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I added "currently" to the opening sentence, but have been reverted. I added the word for clarity, and would like to discuss. We are an online encyclopedia, and have to deal with current events. I say my addition is clear, direct and makes the opening sentence encyclopedic. I welcome the opinions of others, thanks. Jus da fax 21:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Sir Joseph blocked by Bishonen for disruptive behavior. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Concerning religion in infoboxes (religion in the body of the article has different rules): From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. We need proof that Hillary is a practicing Methodist. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you read the Milgram talk page? Apparently my view doesn't count for anything because I haven't posted on other pages. And if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. What exactly is wrong with asking for proof?
Sir Joseph
(talk)
18:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Whatever. I had Milgram on my watchlist for ages and Macon shows up after I edit there. I ask you to read the talk page before you make pronouncments of edits. Read the antagonism against myself and
User:Bus stop.
Sir Joseph
(talk)
18:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
so you're confirming that questioning religion in infoboxes is only allowed for certain religions? What exactly am I doing wrong at Biden?
Sir Joseph
(talk)
18:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
"Hillary Clinton speeches", which is part of the Clinton campaign website says, "She addressed the congregation and spoke about her upbringing in the Methodist Church describing herself as “Methodist both by birth and by choice.” The Clintons were members of the Foundry United Methodist Church during President Clinton’s terms as president." [7] Chelsea's wedding was co-officiated by a rabbi and a Methodist minister. [8] According to The Observer, the minister counts the Clintons as his parishioners in Westchester and officiated over Hillary's mother's funeral. [9] Professor Paul Kengor says that Clinton "is in lockstep with the United Methodist Church on almost all issues." [10] TFD ( talk) 19:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC) As far as I'm concerned, any uninvolved editor could archive this per WP:SNOW. I can't imagine an issue in less need of further discussion. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC) (ec) I guess this and the related thread at talk Biden can be closed now. No need to waste more time. --TMCk ( talk) 19:21, 4 May 2016 (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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
The following statement was just added:
"Political Compass scores Clinton's political positions as far-right, mid-authoritarian, as of the 2016 presidential election cycle."
This struck me as sufficiently odd that I looked at their positioning, and by their standards, essentially *everyone* except Bernie Sanders qualifies as right-wing authoritarian. This strikes me as somewhat not
WP:NPOV. Do we regard Political Compass as a reliable source?
Tarl.Neustaedter (
talk)
02:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
One recurring problem on determining who is right, center, or left is that the subject of the political spectrum has differing definitions since the 18th century and significant differences between political systems or historical eras. For example, right-wing politics in 18th and 19th century France largely had to do with political factions consisting of "traditional conservatives, monarchists and reactionaries". Just about every American political faction would be considered "left" in comparison to them, because Americans did not favor absolute monarchy, hereditary nobility, or a powerful church. But nowadays Gaullism, a traditional ideology of the French right, is devoted to republicanism. The political system changed and the spectrum changed with it. Dimadick ( talk) 19:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the reference should be removed unless it's mentioned by a reliable secondary source, as an indicator of validity and notability. CFredkin ( talk) 17:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Anti-Clinton/Justice Dept rant by drive-by IP editor that does not address article improvement. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why does the top of the talk page say "Even though this page is not a biography..." etc etc.? This plainly is a biography. It's an article, about the life and characteristics of Hillary Clinton, and is titled "Hillary Clinton." It seems that that note is not necessary, or maybe replace it with a more fitting tag. Hobbes Novakoff ( talk) 03:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Should current and recent candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election include politician among their notable occupations in the lead of their biographical articles, even if the candidate eschews the term? Please participate in a new Request for Comment on this question. General Ization Talk 12:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed language that put the email controversy into the already overlong introduction because (a) it adversely changes the neutrality of the introduction, and (b) it assigns too much weight to a thing that is unresolved and may yet amount to nothing. Without respect for the WP:BRD process, this was then reverted. With a controversial edit of this nature, I believe it is incumbent upon the editor adding the material to win a consensus for doing so on this talk page. -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Here in italics is the language that I inserted in my last article edit:
“ | She used social media to communicate the U.S. message abroad, and an unresolved controversy continues about her use of a private server instead of government servers for official email communication. | ” |
This seems like a modest mention, considering that there's a huge subsection about this later in the BLP. We don't wait for controversies to be fully resolved before mentioning them in a lead, if reliable sources have been providing extensive coverage for a long time (e.g. the allegations against Dennis Hastert have been in the lead of that article for many months, and rightly so). Anyone who thinks there has been more coverage of Hillary Clinton's use of social media to communicate the U.S. message abroad than coverage of the email issue is dreaming. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Washington Post: “Her decision to exclusively use a private e-mail account while secretary suggests she made a deliberate decision to shield her messages from scrutiny. It was a mistake that reflects poor judgment about a public trust.”
New York Times: “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s decision when she was secretary of state to use only her personal email account to conduct official business was a disturbing departure from the normal practice of relying primarily on departmental emails for official business.”
Charlotte Observer: “Clinton isn’t the first to use private email, but her failure to disclose massive batches is troubling. … But key issues remain unclear. What about her private-account emails to representatives of foreign governments? What about emails to U.S. officials on their private or government accounts?”
Wall Street Journal: “The real story here is that none of this is a surprise. This is how the Clintons roll. They’re a political version of the old Peanuts cartoon character who was always surrounded by a cloud of dirt. Ethical shortcuts and controversies are standard operating procedure.” Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The criterion for including allegations of wrong=doing is not whether they are true but whether they are considered significant in reliable sources about the subject. The artcle on Richard Nixon for example mentions Watergate even though Nixon was never indicted or convicted of any offense. The emails are an election issue, Clinton was asked about them in the first presidential debate for example. TFD ( talk) 15:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Anythingyouwant: Please explain how I lack "credibility" exactly? And please also explain how I'm not "doing anything to shorten the lead" when that is precisely what I have begun to do in initiating this discussion? Please don't diminish my efforts just because I started with a specific thing you evidently disagree with. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
agree with the no-lead group for now. Watergate is very coupled with Nixon's long term reputation and biography. It remains to be seen if that is the case for Clinton. Certainly it is a major issue for the election. It is properly mentioned in the lead of the election article. If this issue ultimately results in her being indicted (or recommendation for indictment from the FBI), or losing the nomination, or losing the election (as linked by major reliable sources) then it would ultimately be the end of her political career, and would be worthy for her BLP lead at that time. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Should Clinton's use of a private server for her government-related emails, rather than the U.S. government server, be included in the lead of this article Here is link to the disputed text. TFD ( talk) 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
As secretary of state, Clinton used a private server for her government-related emails, rather than the U.S. government server. There is currently a police investigation to determine whether her actions were in violation of federal law. TFD ( talk) 17:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu opposes inclusion in the lead on the basis that Powell and Rice both had the same set up. In fact they did not. On a handful of occasions each used a private email account rather than their government email, but it was only mentioned in mainstream media as part of the coverage of the Clinton email story. What coverage if any it deserves in those articles should be discussed in those articles. The significance of information to any article is determined by the weight it is provided in reliable sources, not the fairness of the relative coverage of information in reliable sources. TFD ( talk) 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Wasted Time R ( talk · contribs), lots of stuff that Hillary Clinton has done is lead-worthy even though it clearly involved no criminal behavior on her part. Why assume the email thing is only lead-worthy if it was indictable? Lots of sources say it showed very poor judgment even apart from illegality. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL.
Established professional journalistic practice, per style manuals of the AP, NYT, ad infinitum, is to render a subject's name in that indivual prefers such as often in her/his signature, etc. Thus it is WP's practice to render this in the header to the infobox when it conflicts with the shortened form the subject is generally known to the public by (as in wp:Common name); eg see Template:Infobox person (regarding middle initials): " If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the birth_name field, include them here."-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
In a similar fashion to the email controversy, I removed this segment from the introduction which (most likely) refers to her Goldman Sachs speeches because: it adversely changes the neutrality of the introduction, and it assigns too much weight to something that is irrelevant to both her career and her biography (much more so than the email controversy at that). I removed it twice and made a point the second time that it had no relevance to her career or life but it got readded both times without any explanation as to why; so I believe it is mandatory for the user or anyone who thinks it should be left there to win a consensus in this talk page for that segment to remain in the lead. Narciso003 ( talk) 15:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Include. Here's what the BLP says below the lead:
“ | She began work on another volume of memoirs, and began making appearances on the paid speaking circuit, receiving about $200,000 per engagement, as well as making some unpaid speeches on behalf of the foundation.[404] For the fifteen months ending in March 2015, Clinton earned over $11 million from her speeches....As of 2015, she was estimated to be worth over $30 million on her own.... | ” |
So over a third of her net worth was from speeches given for hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. And her speeches have been in the lead for a long time. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment It's clear to me that this is only noteworthy insofar as her political opponents have made it a campaign issue. The removal was appropriate and this does not belong in the lede any more than Pres. Reagan's paid speeches belong in his. If any editor feels strongly that this should be mentioned in the lede, I suggest that such editor launch an RfC so that the matter can be put to rest. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see the updated editnotice for current sanctions, and heed the instructions. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Coffee The edit warning appears, but the notice at the top of the page just mentions normal DS in the politics area, not any specifically applied sanction. Additionally, the notices you sent to my and others pages is just the standard DS notice and does not mention the specific restriction. If editors are going to be sanctioned based on this new rule, communication of that rule needs to be made much more clearly. Gaijin42 ( talk) 00:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
A tag has been placed atop the BLP saying that the lead is too long. So, I gave brief descriptions instead of full names of three federal programs that she helped create. The lead was about this long when the article attained featured status in 2014, so I don't think it's way too long. I would, however, delete this sentence: "Clinton viewed 'smart power' as the best strategy for projecting U.S. influence, by combining military power with diplomacy and capabilities in economics, technology, and other areas." As described later in the BLP, Clinton has described the Libya military intervention as a case study in "smart power" which suggests that the term is amorphous, and indeed we quote David Ignatius as saying the term is vapid and overused. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's any consensus to remove this from the lead:
“ | Hillary Rodham grew up in the Chicago area. She attended Wellesley College, graduating in 1969. She then earned a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. | ” |
So I'll restore it. This seems very apt for the lead. There does seem to be consensus to remove the sentence about "smart power". Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Over the past few days, I have shortened the lead. It's down to 484 words from 588 words, according to my word counter. Similar shortening could be done to the rest of the article, I think. My only criticisms of the lead at this point are that it should briefly say something like "she was criticized for using a private email server", and should mention that the Libya intervention was "without congressional authorization" (my reasons were already discussed at this talk page). Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 12:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I'm okay with most of these changes, but not some, for these reasons:
It's also worth noting that for many readers, this lead is all they will look at of this (or any) article. Giving the best summary of her career is more important than tersifying it. I've never seen or heard of a "real" reader (not another editor) complain about any lead in WP being too long. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I added "currently" to the opening sentence, but have been reverted. I added the word for clarity, and would like to discuss. We are an online encyclopedia, and have to deal with current events. I say my addition is clear, direct and makes the opening sentence encyclopedic. I welcome the opinions of others, thanks. Jus da fax 21:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Sir Joseph blocked by Bishonen for disruptive behavior. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Concerning religion in infoboxes (religion in the body of the article has different rules): From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. We need proof that Hillary is a practicing Methodist. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you read the Milgram talk page? Apparently my view doesn't count for anything because I haven't posted on other pages. And if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. What exactly is wrong with asking for proof?
Sir Joseph
(talk)
18:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Whatever. I had Milgram on my watchlist for ages and Macon shows up after I edit there. I ask you to read the talk page before you make pronouncments of edits. Read the antagonism against myself and
User:Bus stop.
Sir Joseph
(talk)
18:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
so you're confirming that questioning religion in infoboxes is only allowed for certain religions? What exactly am I doing wrong at Biden?
Sir Joseph
(talk)
18:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
"Hillary Clinton speeches", which is part of the Clinton campaign website says, "She addressed the congregation and spoke about her upbringing in the Methodist Church describing herself as “Methodist both by birth and by choice.” The Clintons were members of the Foundry United Methodist Church during President Clinton’s terms as president." [7] Chelsea's wedding was co-officiated by a rabbi and a Methodist minister. [8] According to The Observer, the minister counts the Clintons as his parishioners in Westchester and officiated over Hillary's mother's funeral. [9] Professor Paul Kengor says that Clinton "is in lockstep with the United Methodist Church on almost all issues." [10] TFD ( talk) 19:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC) As far as I'm concerned, any uninvolved editor could archive this per WP:SNOW. I can't imagine an issue in less need of further discussion. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC) (ec) I guess this and the related thread at talk Biden can be closed now. No need to waste more time. --TMCk ( talk) 19:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
|