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.

The carpetbagging sentence is sentence six in the first paragraph of § Senate election of 2000.

I researched the scope of the carpetbagger issue in this article, using the archive search ('carpetbag' seems to give the widest results). The main, latest, discussion that I was able to find occurred in Archive 4 § Extraneous material. Subsequent discussions occurred in Archives 6 and 8 related to GA and FA 'controversies' sections.

1. The wikilink for carpetbagger in the sentence does not go to the Carpetbagger article. It goes to the Parachute candidate article. This is a bit more indirect than I expected (the Parachute candidate article then immediately links to the Carpetbagger article). On the other hand, I might argue with myself that I appreciate learning a new term. On the third hand, my editing POV is that of my 8 year old niece: I edit for educational reasons, and like to try to keep stuff simple, you know? This problem is more with the encyclopedia than the article: There are two articles here that mean essentially the same thing. Personally, I'd like to see them merged some day. Still, I can't find justification for editing or not editing the link, by myself; I simply don't know what the justification was for pointing it at Parachute candidate in the first place.
2. The 2nd half of the carpetbagging sentence has a factual misstatement, "...nor participated in the state's politics before this race." While Ms. Clinton's detractors may have argued that, the article itself points out that she'd been involved in New York politics as early as 1965 (see, I learned that on Wikipedia). In § Wellesley College years, she supported Mayor John Lindsay for Mayor of New York. Also, " Rockefeller Republican-oriented group" in that § is a reference to Nelson Rockefeller, Governor of New York during that time frame (1959-1973). I think the sentence needs a bit of clarification on what was asserted in the 2000 campaign versus what is actually true in the biography of the individual, in order to maintain NPOV here.
3. In § Events 2011–13 and concluding themes, para 4, "On September 11, 2012, the U.S. diplomatic mission..." sentence 7 is, "Clinton said she accepted the conclusions of the report and that charges were underway to implement its suggested changes." I can't make heads or tails of this. So I read the whole two page cite, currently at [340], Kim, Seung Min; Nocera, Kate (December 20, 2012). "Hillary Clinton aides testify on Benghazi". Politico. Nope, there are no charges mentioned, of any sort. I'm thinking, " Depth charges? Chargé d'affaires?" Nope. But in that time frame, Secretary Clinton is not available due to a concussion. The article, while contributing to the story of what happened, does not actually contribute to the biography of the person at all. In fact, the words "charge" and "charges" never occur in the article. The word "changes" never occurs in the article. The word "change" occurs in the article only in the context of the term "global climate change" and a House Representative's suggestion that the government should spend less on it. Unless my command of English has totally failed me, as it stands, the sentence may as well go in the Jaberwocky article. I do not know how to edit this sentence to fix it so it makes any sense at all.

But with respect to the article overall, thanks for your work, it deserves its FA, in my opinion. — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 20:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, they are appreciated. In regards to specifics:

• Regarding the carpetbagger link, I think the idea is that the Carpetbagger article will cover the U.S. 19th century historical case, which is very important, while the Parachute candidate article will cover the general idea of politicians dropping into unfamiliar districts, which is less important and should have a worldwide perspective not just U.S.-based. That said, the latter article needs a lot of improvement.
• "...nor participated in the state's politics before this race" is completely accurate. Lindsay and Rockefeller were both politicians with national followings and the fact that three decades earlier, when she was a college student in Massachusetts, she liked them and supported them in discussions with other Republican students in Massachusetts and in Washington, and subsequently supported Rockefeller's presidential candidacy in Miami, in no way means she was involved in New York State politics.
• Regarding the ARB report sentence, yes there was a typo there as well as a non-optimal cite. I've corrected the text to "Clinton said she accepted the conclusions of the report and that changes were underway to implement its suggested recommendations.[338]" and the cite now directly supports that. Thanks for spotting this.
• [split out to below]

Thanks again for these comments. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration, as to your first three points. I accept the matters are dealt with. — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 06:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

[split out from above section]

• Finally, regarding this edit you made yesterday, the Tuzla visit in this image is not necessarily the one that landed in her trouble in 2008. In fact, this is a confused situation - the Media Viewer image since it's from 1996 but the Commons description says December 22, 1997. What's more, the Commons description says the photographer is "Credit: William J. Clinton Presidential Library", which is absurd since that didn't exist yet, it's just where someone got the image from recently. If the image was taken by the AP or some newspaper, it would be under copyright and ineligible for use here. Now I suspect the image is taken from the same visit and by one of the same US Army photographers as in this Defense Department news article here, which is for a December 22, 1997 visit. But I haven't found this exact one of Hillary and Chelsea on a greeting line yet on a DoD site, so I can't be sure. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The more I research this, the more confused and ambiguated I become. I think I need an expert disambiguator (a Bosnia expert too). Now, I think your DoD article is pretty compelling, but I went in a different direction to update my understanding (I only looked at the reference in the main body of the article at first): The Commons image links back to the source, which is the CIA's Flickr site (I jumped at first, but I'm OK now, I'm used to their World Factbook stuff for other research). They have a nice stream of 13 photos from the visit at: President Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chelsea Clinton greet troops at Tuzla Air Force Base in Bosnia, and I went to their site about the history at Bosnia, Intelligence, and the Clinton Presidency.

There is a 58 page PDF there that has a cited image from the visit at: Clinton_Bosnia_Booklet.pdf, page 22 (large file warning). It is a crop of one of the 13 Flickr images. All this leads me to believe that the 1997 cite on the image(s), right or wrong, is coming from the Clinton Library, not the CIA. (This is PR after all, not the classified stuff, different people vetting the material using very different standards, I'm sure.)

So I went to the Clinton Library. The first search string is pretty easy, Tuzla yields a mere 144 results ('Bosnia trip' gives over 6,000). The site even lets you narrow it by 'FLOTUS' (18 results).

But, I'm real weak on this time period in history. See, I received no news from late 1994 to some time in 1998. This is where I start to get vague on what I'm looking for. Did POTUS and/or FLOTUS make more than one Tuzla trip? I haven't any idea. The Library references seem worth researching in their own right. Like NARA references, it's historically compelling.

But I can't tell from the references how many trips were made to Tuzla, or who made those trips. If more than one was made, then I suppose it could have been POTUS only, which would mean that the 1996 date in the Heilemann and Halperin 2010, pp. 239–240 cite is incorrect (I found a (probably copyvio) PDF of that book online, and confirmed it stated Tulza 1996). The images that I've seen now from the trip that FLOTUS was on, also feature Chelsea and, I believe, Madeleine Albright as well (per WP she served as SoS starting in Jan, 1997). Also, the President changes jackets, though they look the same, the unit insignia is different, and matches the unit he's visiting, Army or Air Force.

Clicking on random documents at the Library, a doc called FLOTUS Press Releases 12/98-8/99 Binder: April 1999 has a transcript of a 1999 FLOTUS speech in which she recollects, "You know, I went to Bosnia shortly after the peace accords were signed, when it was safe enough to go to our base in Tuzla, but not very safe to go anywhere else. I couldn't get in to Sarajevo." (PDF, page 47). Not knowing the history of the conflict, this doesn't help me narrow the time frame, but maybe it does you? — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 06:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked again to find a legitimate photo credit for this image, but couldn't. I still think it's likely that it was taken by U.S. military personnel and thus not a copyvio. But in any case, I think the weight of evidence is that it's from the 22 December 1997 visit, so I've changed the caption to show that. Also note that I undid this formatting edit of yours – wire service names don't go in italics, and in any case it's the job of the {{ cite news}} template to decide which fields to use italics for and which not. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take the formatting discussion elsewhere.

I did not mean to suggest there are any copvios on WP (there aren't here, and I do raise them when I see them), I did mean to suggest I came across one on Google, supporting the 1996 date to the Tuzla visit in the Heilemann and Halperin reference (currently at [280]). That still leaves a contradiction in the article that I do find disturbing: Her travels are a matter of record. I see the conundrum, and have faced it before, the reference apparently has the wrong date, and it is "passed through" in the article's section "Presidential campaign of 2008" (para 8). Since the book apparently actually says that, I'm not aware of any way that we can, as editors, fix it and leave the reference in the article. Perhaps it could be vague-ified from "1996" to "1990s"?  — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 04:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hillary and Chelsea definitely made at least two different visits to Tuzla: March 25, 1996 – this is the one where the 'sniper fire' controversy later broke out, see this New York Times story or this WaPo piece – and then December 22, 1997 - see this BBC News story or this Chicago Tribune story for example. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now, much appreciated. Might your above paragraph be added to the Notes section? Or the FAQ above? The real problem is the article flow: Reading earlier in the article, I, the reader, thinks she visits Tuzla once in '97, then, much later I'm going, "Wait, what is this 1996 thing here?" In the earlier history, had it been mentioned that she made a 1996 Tuzla visit, I would not have questioned the 2008 criticism found later in the article. You've got good sources for it. I understand that article length is an issue, though. Bit of a challenge, but this is the time for it (before the candidacy announcements). (Your WaPo link is broken for me, I've fixed it, at least partially: Hillary's Balkan Adventures, Part II.)   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 18:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've modified to two different mentions to add month to year and they both now say "a" visit. That should make clear they are two different visits. And in the caption to the image I've changed NATO to U.S. regarding the troops involved, since all the sources say it was U.S. troops the Clintons were visiting at Tuzla and those are the only ones visible in the image. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My thanks, gratitude, and respect.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Benghazi, taking money from enemy countries, Email scandel,

[copyvio of Dan Calabrese posting from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1996428/posts deleted]

[copyvio of "The Clinton Crime Family" excerpt from http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clintcrimefamily.html deleted]

[copyvio of Larry Klayman column from http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/proof-hillary-isnt-fit-to-be-president/ deleted]

112.198.79.103 ( talk) 07:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not supposed to copy-and-paste other peoples' material here, just link to them or write your own. As for the substance, a number of these matters are already discussed in the article – and some additionally have articles of their own – although none of it is in the inflammatory tone of these links. Non-inclusion of some others are discussed in the Talk archives. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to un-collapse the FAQ by default. After reading the article's lede, I came here annoyed, and with questions. After reading the FAQ, I am now un-annoyed, and have no further questions. Does any one else agree that un-collapsing it is a good idea? — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I would actually collapse it further. I think it would be nice to have a single bar for the many move discussions, just like the single bar for media mentions above it. bd2412 T 20:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Now collapsing the Old Move Requests box I'm certainly for, as I just wasted a few hours of my life reading the April 2014 RM discussion (including the opinion of "Clinton's people"). Amazing how much I appreciate a debate. But really, length-wise, the box is a bit too big for its own good, as this page initially appears to its audience. I'd have (initially) argued for the move, but now I'm informed why I should not argue either way. Still though, the FAQ was "insanely" useful to me, and based on that, I think others would appreciate having it in their face first thing when coming here. (I take it traffic to this article is on the upswing.) — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I studied the 'Old moves' template, it uses a semi-collapsible style that lets the most recent MR still show. I think that is highly relevant here, because the relevant RM had two subsequent irrelevant ones, an MRV, and admin restrictions, some of which are still in force, for the good of the community. The semi-collapse still shows all that (including the bottom note), while the older RMs are available at the bottom, for those interested (I'd put it at the top, because I have a strong preference for chronological order, but, oh well.) The FAQ can easily be re-collapsed by toggling collapsed=yes.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

No mention of her involvement in the UN spying controversy. This page is skewed to portray her in the most positive light possible some by ignoring some of her bigger controversies.

In July 2009, a confidential cable[1] originating from the United States Department of State, and under US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's name, ordered US diplomats to spy on Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, and other top UN officials.[2] The intelligence information the diplomats were ordered to gather included biometric information (which apparently included DNA, fingerprints, and iris scans), passwords, and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.[2][3] It also included Internet and intranet usernames, e-mail addresses, web site URLs useful for identification, credit card numbers, frequent flier account numbers, and work schedules.[2][4][5] The targeted human intelligence was requested in a process known as the National Humint Collection Directive, and was aimed at foreign diplomats of US allies as well.[5]

— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Richter D. Belmont (
talk • 
contribs) 14:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a brief mention of the Wikileaks disclosures in general in this article already. There used to be this additional text here: "A few of the cables released by WikiLeaks concerned Clinton directly: they revealed that directions to members of the foreign service, written by the CIA, had gone out in 2009 under her (systematically attached) name to gather biometric and other personal details on foreign diplomats, including officials of the United Nations and U.S. allies.[304][305][306]" When I revised this article following the end of her tenure, I looked at a lot of news stories about her time as secretary and there was little or no mention of this – other things were considered more important. So I removed it. Note there are still two long paragraphs about the UN aspect of the Wikileaks matter in the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State#Regional issues and travels: 2010 detail article. But I'm open to restoring this text here if people think it important to be in this article. Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm strongly for the information being included in the encyclopedia. Editorial judgment has been properly exercised, I feel, as to what article to place that information in. The important key, for me, as a reader, is that the proper "section hatnotes" are in place in each section of this article, to properly clue me in to the fact that not all the info is in this article, but is elsewhere.

I just re-reviewed all those, and they are all where they need to be under the section headings (and a jaunty little info box at the beginning of the article), as far as I can tell: I can get to the SoS "tenure" article if I need to know more on that subject.

Because of the very nature of the subject, clearly stated in the FAQ, most sections here fall under WP:SS, and I've no expectation of those sections being near-complete. I have higher expectations of completeness from the daughter articles, and I'm sure those editors have done their best to include all that can be properly sourced there.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 02:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised that there is no email discussion or not here that I can see. This is a hard article because of the millions of people around, there's bound to be a few loyalists or anti-loyalists of hers. However, we have to answer to WP, not HRC or, for a few, Jeb B.

The current version is not neutral. So fight it among yourselves. The most non-neutral is the last sentence...

In response, Clinton said she had a few months earlier turned over many e-mails to the State Department following their request and that she wanted them made public.[368]

That she wanted to make them public is a hugely public relations statement. Bottom line is that she wanted full control so she went through a lot of trouble to set up her own system. Now she destroyed all of her emails except the ones her lawyers allowed. All this secrecy hurts her because there probably not much there. Any little bit there has been destroyed.

Now back to WP, a modification to the last sentence could be...

In response, Clinton said she had a few months earlier turned over many e-mails to the State Department following their request [368] and that she had destroyed all other emails. Citation .. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-did-hillary-clinton-delete-about-30000-emails-2015-3

Note, no mention that she won't turn over her server or the stated reason for the email setup being that she wanted to carry one device.

You guys fight to over yourselves. Stephanie Bowman ( talk) 04:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC) The CBC was even more scathing. They are usually pro-Democratic and very anti-GOP but their article said her excuse was laughable. See

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/world/hillary-clinton-email-excuses-laughable-says-top-freedom-of-information-official-1.2991413

The trouble here is that the facts of the case keep changing. Everyone was assuming that if she had used a state.gov address, all her e-mails would have been saved, but then it turns out that isn't so. Then it was said that her people used a keyword search to find all the mails to send back to State and there was concern that such a method wouldn't find some work-related mails, but then now they say they read every one. And so on. And she never used the word "delete" or "destroy" in her press conference and it's not clear what exactly what the state of those other e-mails is − maybe she just didn't turn them over, maybe they are on a backup tape or device, maybe they could be recovered forensically, etc. I agree that her "convenience" explanation for why she did this in the first place is hard to believe, but then it turns out that at the time State Department-issued BlackBerrys couldn't access both official and private mail accounts.

So I will modify the text some but in my view it's kind of futile for this article to try to keep up with each day's news regarding this until accounts really settle down. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on the futility point.

But do emphasize that for every thing added, something must be removed to a daughter article, critical mass having long since been reached in this article. At the time it made FA, its length can be said to be "perfect", by some human measure, as opposed to arbitrary byte-length.

I go for the ten-year-test found in the essay WP:RECENTISM myself. This whole blow-up will probably merit little more than one sentence in the whole encyclopedia, ten years from now (though with at least three sources, I hope).

One thing about the above suggestions, I particularly appreciate cited foreign news services such as CBC and BBC, where available and appropriate, when the subject is American. I feel it adds an "objective" or "third-opinion" quality to the issue that just can't be found in U.S. news sources.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 03:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

“We've turned over all of her work emails, and taken the extraordinary step of asking the State Department to release all of them. When they are released, which we hope to be soon, it will offer an unprecedented opportunity for the American people to see for themselves that they are all there and then some,” he said. He being Nick Merrill.

and then some, Hilary has produced all the emails, plus a few more that could not exist, only the Clinton family could do that. Meanwhile no evidence whatsoever has been produced that this woman knew that her actions were illegal. No evidence that any advice was taken before this illegal action was taken. The article also fails to note that another member of the US Government has also behaved illegally with regard to emails.

The article also fails to note that the reason for concern is not parochial, because the Democrats have plenty of form on illegal behaviour, but because the lives of US soldiers, US diplomats and US civilians were jeopardized, and may still be jeopardised.

Contrition, and mea culpa have we none, nor would I expect any, nor would I expect this to be reported herein. AnnaComnemna ( talk) 01:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite follow all of what you say here. But regarding the Merrill quote, when the e-mails she turned back over to State are published we'll see if they shed new light on her tenure as secretary, and if so then this article and the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article may well be changed to reflect that. But it's too soon to say. Regarding whether any of her actions were illegal or if so whether she knew they were, that is still something being looked into (see the recent stories about secretaries apparently not signing the OF-109 exit form, which some critics had raised as a possible point of illegality). Regarding what secretaries before her may have done or not done, that's kind of out of scope for this article, especially because the state of technology and adoption of technology has been different for every recent secretary.

Overall, as pointed out in the above sections as well, this is a story that has yet to fully play out, and as Aladdin Sane points out, there is no way of knowing now how important the e-mail story will be to her political future or to her reputation. However there is now a dedicated Emailgate article (started by someone else), so any editor who wants to try to track developments more rapidly can make changes there. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"Congressional Republicans challenged her on several points, sometimes triggering emotional or angry responses from her.[nb 13]"

The term "triggering" has odd and unverifiable connotations. It suggests her replies were unintentional [who knows?] and calls to mind contemporary debates over "triggers."

"Eliciting" would be a decent synonym, or perhaps replacing everything after the comma with "to which she sometimes responded angrily or emotionally." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.85.114 ( talk) 17:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of replacing everything after the comma with "to which she sometimes responded angrily or emotionally", or words to that effect. That would be more neutrally phrased than "sometimes triggering", IMO.-- JayJasper ( talk) 17:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the 'triggering' originally but I agree now that you bring it up that it has unintended connotations. I've reworded this to use 66.176.85.114 and JayJasper's suggestion.

I'll also say that at this point I agree with pulling the exchange-with-Ron-Johnson passage out of the Note and into the main text, which another editor did (I've fixed now up some glitches from that edit). From both the TruthRevolt piece (more on that next) and other cases, it's clear that Notes and their "nb" pointers tend to get missed – alas, I guess no one knows any Latin abbreviations any more. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wasted Time R [...] should be banned from editing the Hillary Clinton page any further, especially in light of his clear POV bias for Secretary Clinton. See this new story - http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/hillary-gets-special-protection-wikipedia -- The left wing liberal machine's most loyal guards will do everything in their power to keep the wheel squeaky clean. Shame on you [...]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.219.52 ( talk) 20:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This was removed as a personal attack, but I'm restoring it (minus the directly personal invective) because the TruthRevolt piece by Bradford Thomas merits a response if not the rant around it by IP 99.113.219.52.

Most of the details of this TruthRevolt piece are actually pretty reasonable, but the headline, first sentence, and last sentence are slanted (maybe a website editor tagged those on?). On a couple of recent matters: Regarding the "What difference at this point does it make?" quote being missing, it was there but in a Note that was missed. Per the above section, this and its context have now been pulled into the main text. Regarding the downplaying of the e-mails controversy, that's not the intent; it's more a question of trying to wait for more facts to come out and to have a better chance of avoiding recentism and judging what will pass the WP:10 year test. There are now three different articles with material on this; I'll try to update them a bit over the next day or two.

The greater point, of course, is that this article has no 'special protection' as claimed by the headline. Well, all Wikipedia biographies of living people have the WP:BLP level of protection, so biographies here tend to lean a bit in the favorable direction, but that extends across the board. It should be clear that certainly have no special powers here. But it's also important to realize this isn't the only political article I've worked on. Besides being the main researcher and writer of this article and the one who brought it to Featured Article status, I'm also the main researcher and writer of John McCain, Early life and military career of John McCain, Mitt Romney, and George W. Romney, all of which have also attained Featured Article status, and I'm the acting main editor on Nancy Reagan, also Featured. My Good Article credits include Joe Biden, Lenore Romney, Charles Rangel, Mike Gravel, and many other political figures. It's safe to assume that I admire some of these people and don't admire others, that I would vote for some of these and not for others, that I think some are undervalued by history while others don't know when to stop talking, and so forth. But I don't think you can tell which is which by looking at the articles.

Anyway, enough of that. I guess it's a badge of honor of sorts to be the subject of a Drudge Report main page link!  :-) Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the bigger question, is whether this, and those pages linked above meet WP:NEU, whether those pages (and this one) have a slightly positive light, or a slightly negative light. Whether this page,or those pages mentioned above, carry the bias of their sources or not. I haven't really edited here (much, I don't remember).

WP:OUTING doesn't apply here as the above editor chose to reveal themselves, and was not outed by another editor. Whether the editor has a WP:COI is a matter of debate, but WP:AGF applies.

Either way, gooday.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There's definitely no WP:COI here. I've never worked for any campaign, I've never volunteered for any campaign (modulo a little leaflet distributing four decades ago), I've never donated to any campaign, I don't know any people in any campaign, I don't get paid for this, indeed I lose money if you count newspaper archive stories bought. I do vote, but that's it. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A badge of honor indeed, WTR. You're one of the most even-handed editors I've worked with here in my nine years - this is utter nonsense. Congratulations. I'm jealous. Tvoz/ talk 07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that the TR article's reference to "special protection" in no way implies "special powers" (as described above). A straight reading of the TR text indicates simply that one person has committed himself to "shaping" the article to an unusual degree. While the TR article itself raises a debatable issue of WP:COI, as noted by another editor above, It is the mischaracterisation/subtle twisting of the TR article by its subject that one finds troubling. Is this introduction of a red herring an example of the Clinton "shape the article" The New Republic referenced in 2008, and that the TR alludes to in 2015? XavierItzm ( talk) 13:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs a watcher, not an owner. WTR has spent years doing just that. It's an amazing job he's done.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 04:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

" TruthRevolt is a politically conservative media watchdog and activist group founded by conservative commentators Ben Shapiro and David Horowitz". That's all I need to know. David Horowitz is as POV as they come. Wasted Time R, on the other hand, is even handed and fair. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 13:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is why no one trusts Wikipedia anymore. A Hillary insider is outed, and you do nothing but deflect and make excuses. If a former Bush employee was found to be 'protecting' his article for almost a decade, he would be banned so fast that the servers would crash. We know you're biased. The world know it. 75.118.176.163 ( talk) 15:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I must've missed the part where it was verified that Wasted Time R is a "Hillary insider". –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I was in the White House once in the mid-1990s, does that count? Well, since I waited a long line starting in pre-dawn hours to take the public tour, not exactly. But if I had been a Hillary insider, she wouldn't be in the soup she is now with the e-mails. As a computer professional I would have told her that using her own address and server and security setup was a terrible idea, as a quasi-sorta-historian I would have told her that missing the archival record was a bad idea (and as a computer person again I would have told State to save the things, which it turns out they weren't doing anyway), and as a longtime watcher of the political scene I would have told her that if it ever came to light the optics would be damaging. Wasted Time R ( talk) 20:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Man, having read your old news articles above, and your recent comments on e-mailgate, I had already read your mind on those technical details. Thanks; you and I knew. The perspective from the sources will come.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 04:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In response to, "...quote being missing, it was there but in a Note that was missed. Per the above section, this and its context have now been pulled into the main text...", I disagree that this should be pulled from the Notes and in to the main text because the writer of a news story on another web site was incompetent and missed it. This is not a reason to edit this article. They did not do the simplest of research, or else materially misstated facts (lied). Either way, not our problem. As editors, we need to stand up to this simplest bullying tactic against our articles. They are very short summaries; they are not books. The TR article in question proceeds from an assumption of expecting a comprehensive biography; this is not the right place to get one.

That journalist proceeds from an assumption of unreasonable expectations of an encyclopedia. That is not the encyclopedia's function, to be comprehensive. It's just a quick overview of a subject. The example I give to critics around me: I use it to look up legal terms, but I did not come here expecting to earn a J.D.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 06:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Any of the prior Secretaries of State had at their disposal, in theory, the manifestations of both hard and soft power, and many wielded these manifestations in verying combinations to achieve the will of their respective US administrations.

As an example, George P Shultz, working for the Reagan administrations in the 1980's, was profoundly responsible for the economic and political demise of the former Soviet Union. During that time, Shultz was also instrumental in securing liberation of numerous Jewish detainees from Soviet prisons through the use of soft power much more so than hard power. It doesn't get much "smarter" than that.

To portray Ms Rodham Clinton, as Secretary of State, as the originator of the deft utilization of hard and soft power (the combination of which being "smart power") is preposterous as a concept, and doing so diminishes the accomplishments of the many highly effective women and men who preceded her in the role.

69.146.62.115 ( talk) 17:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Jack W Reeve

I agree that everything old is new again and that the things now called hard and soft power have been around for a long time and that of course they can be combined. And yes you can point to past historical eras and point out where the United States in effect used it, including at various stages of the Cold War. But the term itself dates only to the early 2000s and the point here is simply that she was the first secretary to be methodically and consciously operating based on that framework. I think you oversell Shultz's actions as a primary cause for the collapse of Communism, as there are many theories that seek to explain that event (which in reality, came as a surprise to virtually everyone). But for sure it's not her intent to downgrade Shultz's efforts - here at her farewell speech at the CFR she praises his actions during the Cold War. Indeed she has talked about the Secretary of State position as being a relay race where you do the best you can and then pass the baton onto the next person. Also please note that the article doesn't claim she originated the theory and that she is never called Ms (or Mrs) Rodham Clinton - it's not a compound last name. Wasted Time R ( talk) 21:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for a vague and noncommittal response to a clear and simple point. But let's dig into this a little deeper: "But the term itself dates only to the early 2000s and the point here is simply that she was the first secretary to be methodically and consciously operating based on that framework." - so you're stating that Ms Clinton based her "framework" {whatever that means) upon a supposedly chic new entry into the political lexicon? And regarding Mr Shultz, who served as Secretary of Labor, Secretary of the Treasury, and as Secretary of State for nearly SEVEN years, I'll not trade shallow banter about the significance of his astonishing contributions - they are public record. Suffice to say that Mr Shultz's performance and effect in public service outshines Ms Clinton's by unfettered leaps and bounds. I hope I didn't "oversell" this point. 69.146.62.115 ( talk) 15:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Jack W Reeve

Thank you for following up on this, and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically, since you raise some good points even though your rhetoric is a bit overheated. Did Clinton base her approach on a chic new entry in the political lexicon? Yes, in part she did, but she's hardly the first secretary to do so; you could consider détente to fall into the same category ... but both could also be considered common sense under a new name, as we each alluded to above. At other times, like all diplomats, she was coping with difficult problems with no easy answers and just trying to find the best path she could regardless of framework or overall philosophy.

Regarding comparisons with other secretaries, the article already states: "Clinton's tenure did not bring any signature diplomatic breakthroughs or domination of war and peace issues in the mold of George Marshall, Dean Acheson, or Henry Kissinger.[313][314]" That was based on two sources, but I could also add this Foreign Affairs piece to it, which also names Marshall, Acheson, and Kissinger as the fairly recent ones that she is not in the company of. You would clearly like to see Shultz added to this list in the article text. Doing so can't be done based on your opinion or mine, but on reputation, reasonable neutral third-party assessments. There was this recent Foreign Policy poll of IR scholars (scroll down), but it puts Shultz in sixth, behind Hillary and others. In reaction there was this Foreign Policy column by a UT professor which objected mightily to Shultz's low placement, saying "Many foreign policy practitioners and diplomatic historians regard Shultz in the same pantheon as Acheson and Marshall ..." But he didn't supply any sources for that. If you can find a couple of sources that say this about Shultz and explicitly say that Clinton was not in the same pantheon, then I can add Shultz to the comparison in the article.

Regarding comparing Shultz's role in government overall (three Cabinet positions and one Cabinet-level position, all in a low-profile manner) to Clinton's (a First Lady who was sometimes more powerful than a Cabinet officer but sometimes less, a senator, and a Cabinet position, all as one of the most famous people in the world), that would be tough – no really commensurate terms to evaluate them on. Wasted Time R ( talk) 21:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

In response to 69.146.62.115, I feel that as an editor, were I to include any of that in the HRC article, since the term did not come in to existence until the 2000s, that I would blatantly run afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policy. As an editor, I can't "back-write" history; the terminology just did not come in to play that way. Development of words goes forward; Wikipedia editors are not allowed to reverse it, regardless of the achievements of a previous SoS.

It seems like most of this discussion belongs to the George P. Shultz article anyway; there's very little room here for comparisons to other SoSes, and what is here in this article, should be adequate to the article already, I feel. Nearly this whole article is essentially a WP:SS, with daughter articles going more in depth on each phase of this biography.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 05:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps mislead by the above discussion, which was due to my writing was a bit loose about comparisons and pantheons, @ Cwobeel: has tagged the above passage for needing inline attribution due to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But the statement that is in the article – "Clinton's tenure did not bring any signature diplomatic breakthroughs or domination of war and peace issues in the mold of George Marshall, Dean Acheson, or Henry Kissinger.[313][314]" – is a statement of observational fact, not opinion. It is already sourced to Paul Richter of the Los Angeles Times and George Packer in The New Yorker. As mentioned above it can additionally be sourced to this Foreign Affairs piece by Michael Hirsh. It can be sourced to this piece by John Cassidy in The New Yorker. And I'm sure I can find more like this. All of these mention that Clinton did not have huge diplomatic breakthroughs like Nixon going to China or establishing dominating strategies like containment against the Soviet Union or changing the immediate course of history by saving Europe economically. This is just a fact; her supporters would not claim that she did. As the article then says, "Instead, she focused on goals that she thought were less tangible but would have more lasting effect.[347]" If those goals end up having a significantly beneficial effect down the road, she might indeed be viewed as a great secretary, but it won't be in the Kissinger/Acheson/Marshall mold.

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies to "Biased statements of opinion", which would be something like "Clinton was not as good a secretary of state as George Marshall, Dean Acheson, or Henry Kissinger." Yes, that would need inline attribution, because it is not equivalent to the first statement. A lot of people, for example, would conclude that for all of Kissinger's dramatic breakthroughs as de facto and de jure secretary, his prolonging of the Vietnam War and his destruction of the stability of Cambodia and his complicity in the overthrow in Chile and his selling out of the Kurds make him one of the worst in that position, not one of the best. But for what the article is actually saying, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It is an opinion, nonetheless, and as such it requires attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And to add to it, it is a comparison and all comparisons have a point to make. Either we let the facts speak for themselves, or if we are adding commentary about a comparison, we need to say who is making the comparison. Otherwise it is read in Wikipedia's voice and that is not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to fix this with a slight attribution to remove the concern of Wikipedia's voice, and also re-ordered that paragraph to let facts speak first and the opinions later. Hope it works for you. - Cwobeel (talk)

If it is an opinion, there are others who hold the opposite opinion. Show me some sources to that effect.

Your version is, to my eyes, worse – it implies that all previous secretaries had signature diplomatic breakthroughs and she didn't. And it comes after the examples of less tangible but more lasting goals, when it should come before them as a lead-in. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it is worse. I think it is different; maybe worse. I read the two versions side by side several times. Putting the analysis at the end makes some sense. It suggests that the paragraph may need to fission in to two, for more historical analysis to come.

I do regret losing three wikilinks, it hurts the educational value of the article. I thought we could fit a fourth in, if a comparison to Shultz were found in the sources (another reason to fission the paragraph). We did not lose any source with Cwobeel's changes, that would be verboten to my mind. I guess I'm weebling on the change.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 02:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Cwobeel: has removed the word "however" from the article on the grounds that it is "editorializing". Only in Wikipedia! Yes, I know it makes an appearance somewhere on the WP:WTA list, but really ... I'd like you to find a book, anywhere, that does not include "however" in it. Does that mean all books are editorializing?

One way this article used it is as an informative connective. Consider the instance you pulled out of the lead. The difference here is essentially between:

"In year Y, Alice failed at major task A. However, in Y+3, Alice did tasks B and C."

"In year Y, Alice failed at major task A. In Y+3, Alice did tasks B and C."

The first version indicates to the reader that B and C are related to A in some way and that in some partial way Alice's initial failure was made up for by later successes. In the second version, the reader doesn't know if B and C are related to A at all; it could just be a chronological narrative of things that happened.

In this case, the first version is the correct one historically: passage of SCHIP, the Adoption act, and the Foster Care act represented Clinton's political comeback in her second term as First Lady, after the collapse of her health care plan in the first term.

The other way this article used it is to indicate a significant turn of events, such as Giuliani suddenly withdrawing from the senate race or Clinton winning the New Hampshire primary after being down in the polls and on the ropes after the Iowa loss. It's not editorializing! It's the normal English writing of narrative, just like countless authors have always used it.

Only in Wikipedia ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Some "howevers" are OK, others are not. The sentences you refer to read really well without the artifact. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As you seem to care about grammar, maybe you can fix this horrendous sentence.

Giuliani withdrew from the race in May 2000 after being diagnosed with prostate cancer and having developments in his personal life become very public.

- Cwobeel (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess that the sentence is attempting to describe this (from Giuliani's article): Then followed four tumultuous weeks, in which Giuliani's medical life, romantic life, marital life, and political life all collided at once in a most visible fashion. Giuliani discovered that he had prostate cancer and needed treatment; his extramarital relationship with Judith Nathan became public and the subject of a media frenzy; he announced a separation from his wife Donna Hanover; and, after much indecision, on May 19, 2000 he announced his withdrawal from the Senate race. There must be a better, simpler way to describe it in this article than the current rendition. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it is trying to convey. I've changed it to "Giuliani withdrew from the race in May 2000 after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and matters related to his failing marriage became public, ..." Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Cwobeel: Comment: I do not want to start a new section here. I do not want to address this on your talk page.

What is going on here is post-FA improvement to this article. While some of us recognize and applaud WTR's contributions that brought this article to FA, this is not the time to discuss post-FA improvements. This is the time to appreciate what has been achieved so far.

Editors such as 69.146.62.115 (seen above) will not understand what I'm about to write, and will bring up their criticisms regardless, such as the 'smart power' criticism above, at this time anyway. This is a burden we editors must confront. We must also keep in mind that WTR did not bring this article to FA alone; dozens of editors contributed to the current quality of this article.

In the recent archive, among many criticisms I brought up, a temporal incongruity was found (Tuzla), and hopefully fixed. That went on in the Feb-Mar 2015 time-frame. The article hit FA in Dec 2014. Between Dec 2014 and Mar 2015, we, the editors of Wikipedia, did all we could in terms of post-FA improvements.

April 1 is the start of a new fiscal quarter, at which time the FEC mandates U.S. candidates, and potential candidates, admit to their actions, and non-actions, with regard to their fund raising related activities in relation their announced, unannounced, and séance-related activities. According to the news stories I've read, the (non-)candidates optimize their fund-raising numbers by announcing candidacy as close to Apr 1 as possible. In other words, it's going to get really busy around here, real soon, from now until November 2016.

Since the article is at FA, I suggest that we editors do all we can to maintain the status quo on this FA, and reserve our improvement-related suggestions for a later time, when the heat of the American Presidential campaign is no longer affecting this article's editing stance.

I actually have suggestions for improvement to the article that I am withholding due to this issue, quote, "There's a time and a place for everything." The critics and the trolls need the editor's energies now and until the final vote is cast (or in the case the subject of this BLP declines to run in the race).

Or, to put it more simply, let's leave well enough alone for now, OK?   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 03:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, and shall leave the article alone for now. Happy editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

When I looked through the edit, the only one of Cwobeel's removals of howevers I really agreed with was the one in the lede: There, it can be let go for brevity's sake. The rest of the howevers seem to make perfect sense to me, in the sequential "but" chronological linking sense of the word (and good style, at that).   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 01:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone going to add an entry for 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdeleted ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! I think its about time we start a section for her 2016 presidential run.So as a member of wiki Biographies I am going to take the lead so chip in! Creator Xavier ( talk) 15:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The section exists already; Hillary Rodham Clinton#2016 presidential campaign. Tarc ( talk) 15:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit to habitually failing to engage in edit war. Because as an editor I think I've grown past the stage of the arguments of a five year old's whine. "Call it a lifestyle."

However, If an FA says that United States Senator is spelled "United States Senator", I can go with that. If WP:MOS concurs, I can go with that. If every "notable person article" I check on WP also spells the term in the context with a capital S I can go with that.

As has recently happened, I've been hit with a 2RR, meaning my undo was undone, by user Cherkash whose skillful edits are beyond repute.

The sequence goes:

lowercase

uppercase

lowercase

Now for the evidence I wish to offer here, I thought I may have to go beyond WP, but I did not: WP:MOS is very clear on two levels:

1) The position is substituted for the person's name. This is particular to the subject heading. That is, the section heading refers back to the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton. This is at at MOS:CAPS § 6 Titles of people, bullet 2.

2) A formal title is treated as a proper name (hence capitalized). As above, bullet 3.

Each bullet is a separate argument, and Cherkash does not address the second in his/her edit.

The above notwithstanding, within the the scope of FAs, the finest articles on WP, and no higher example to appeal, I find this:

In Barack Obama, § 2.3 is "As U.S. Senator from Illinois (2005–08)".

In John McCain, the sentence, "John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona."

Also, in the GA Joe Biden, § 3, "United States Senator"

But let's step out, and zoom out to the wider title, how about, List of current United States Senators?

If we should take Cherkash's learned advice, clearly the title of this article needs to be immediately moved. After all, he/she did argue that all the other articles are wrong (including FAs) in the edit as above and he/she is right of course? Will someone please fix this for me?   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 05:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I also think it should be uppercase per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 – a section header like "United States Senator" is a reference to a formal title that is a proper name. Note this uppercase usage appears in not just the List of current United States Senators article title but also in the title of many other lists, see Category:Lists of United States Senators for them, and also in the titles of scores of categories, see the many categories within Category:United States Senators by party and Category:United States Senators. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Wasted Time R: Under 1RR, BRD, etc., I cannot fix this myself.   — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 22:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I left a request for response on Cherkash's talk page a few days ago, but he or she seems to be pretty inactive lately. I've restored the upper case usage. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm responding here to both of the two points raised above (bullet points 2 & 3 of §6 of WP:MOS):

1) Bullet point 2 doesn't apply in the context of the article, as the section's name is not a substitute for Hillary's name: the section doesn't address "Hillary the person" (as would be suggested if indeed the section title were simply a substitute for her name, effectively making this section "Hillary Clinton"), but rather it addresses the position she had during a specific time in her career: "senator" in this case is a reference to a position she held, and not a generic reference to Hillary.

2) Bullet point 3 doesn't apply for a similar reason: "senator" is not a title, but a position. It may be used as a title in certain contexts, but such honorific use is mostly redundant in an encyclopedia: again, the title of the section clearly refers to the position she held at the time, not to her as a person.

Lastly, to address the issues with the naming of List of current United States Senators and other similar articles – indeed, they should probably be changed to the small letters. The example in WP:MOS (King of France vs. French king) is illustrative in this case. cherkash ( talk) 01:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Greg. I'm not here gaming the system as has been, I think, distastefully mentioned. I am certainly not here with partisan politics and I equally find that aspersion to be utterly uncalled for and bizarre. The only thing that, from my perspective, I do feel partisan for is that Wikipedia should be a reliable source of unbiased representational information. I am a reasonable fan of Hilary/Hilary Rodham Clinton and was more than surprised at the fuss kicked up through the various very occasional RMs. Depending on candidacy running name I suggest that consideration be given to a potential RM.

I am happy for my text to form a basis of an RM or for another completely different text to be adopted. Anyway I am pasting my content below and am happy for anyone to add content or comment. I will add a comments sub heading below the "sand tub" text incase anyone wants to report on additions of amendments to this text. Do with it what you will.

Greg Kaye 18:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Anything below this point can be edited

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton – ...

• http://www.hillaryclintonoffice.com/ presents "Hillary Clinton", "CONTACT THE OFFICE OF HILLARY CLINTON", "Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton, 120 West 45th St...".
• Ngrams raw data also favours Hillary Clinton
• "hillary clinton" gets "About 34,100 results" in Scholar

"hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 13,300 results" in Scholar

• "hillary clinton" gets "About 250,000 results"

"hillary rodham clinton" gets "About 167,000 results" in books

However this also shows that she has published as "hillary rodham clinton" and may not show quality of results

Also on the other side of the story:

• site:state.gov/ "Hillary Rodham Clinton" gets "About 10,500 results" while

site:state.gov/ "Hillary Clinton" gets "About 4,420 results"

Clearly Clinton has a level of recognition that WP:UCRN does not greatly apply but I thought it might be worth considering best name for this and related articles.

• The first line of text starts, "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton ...". ...

Comments regarding the development of a potential RM text

feel free to add further comments about the development of a text

• There is nothing new here. Maybe a campaign launch for president abandoning "Rodham" would be significant new information. As it is, it has all been said before, it is disruptive to a talk page supposedly used to discuss improvements to the article, move it to a subpage. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe see, I think, new argument in relation to official name below. Greg Kaye 07:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• An RM for this article is pretty much d.o.a. Move on and find something worthwhile to do. Tarc ( talk) 02:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Tarc In the previous thread you presented insinuation of "partisan politics" and are asked to strike. Now you lay claim, with evocative language, that a move would be: "d.o.a.". Again please justify or strike as an unsubstantiated and I think questionably motivated assertion.

As a Neutral and if anything favourable observer who simply wants to build encyclopedic content I would say that this issue was very much alive. I would say that efforts to find an optimal name for a highly traffic Wikipedia should not neutrally be insinuated as being something not worthwhile to do and I would question whether you have a conflict of interest in regard to this topic.

• The last RM had closing comments including: "70% of editors who expressed a support/oppose opinion supported the move, and about 76% of those supporting did so at least in part on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. While a lot of evidence was presented on both sides, neither was able to establish that one version was in fact the common name (determined by prevalence in reliable sources). This was partially due to a split in the sources, with official, print, and biographical sources more often preferring Hillary Rodham Clinton, and news, online, and political sources more often preferring Hillary Clinton." I have started with presentation of content which I think is clearly indicative of commonly recognisable name as supportive of "Hillary Clinton" (and please note that I compiled this from the perspective of being a big fan of the likes of Obama and both Clinton's - there is nothing partisan - please strike earlier comment).
• WP:CONCISE was also raised in favour of title as "Hillary Clinton" but I do not personally think that it is in any way encyclopedic to argue for name changes just on the basis that you can hack out words.
• WP:OFFICIALNAME was raised in favour of the title "Hillary Rodman Clinton" but I have presented, I believe, new evidence that the site http://hillaryclintonoffice.com/ presents: "Hillary Clinton" and to this I can add that the site http://hillaryclinton.com/ simply presents "Hillary". (Note: the domain: http://hillaryrodmanclinton.com/ has been in private hands as an advertising site since 16-jun-2011).

Greg Kaye 07:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not "Rodman". Omnedon ( talk) 07:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Which may go to show, from an outsiders perspective, the utter unfamiliarity of the name. Greg Kaye 14:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

When the name "Rodham" is all over the page, and in the title? Omnedon ( talk) 14:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Coffee (Not User:Coffee, though, he's fine) almost sprayed the keyboard on that one. Rodman, heh. Anyways, if the arguments are boiling down to length of URLs now, then that's a sign that the pro-rename crowd is getting a bit thin in the rationale department. Nothing has changed sine the last discussion, where a 3-admin panel found a split in sources using one name vs the other. What Clinton has chosen for her official website name and later on her likely 2016 campaign name does not tip the scales at all. Short URLs are favored because of brevity and that they are easier for potential visitors to remember, they have notihng to do with one's legal or common name. Tarc ( talk) 11:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Tarc: - You mean, where a 3-admin overturned a consensus from 70% of respondents for a rename? As I'd said at the time, consensus being ignored by BLP fundamentalists (e.g. User:Tarc) would simply lead to this debate getting rehashed.

Tarc - You give "disingenuous" and "misleading" new meaning. You know exactly how controversial that "3-admin" decision was, and to say something like "An RM for this article is pretty much d.o.a." is so ridiculous and so bigoted as to simply be dishonest.

Get ready for the rehash.

@ GregKaye: - Good work on working setting this up, and posting it here for review. I might do a little to formalize the RM, and reference past conversations on this topic. Standby...... NickCT ( talk) 14:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

NickCT, a percentage does not define consensus. There was no consensus to be "overturned". You seem to be making a personal attack here. Omnedon ( talk) 14:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon With no justification or citation you have said "what was not helpful was ... your attitude" please consider carefully your views on personal attack. You, on the other hand, still refuse to answer questions and justify your own extreme comments. Welcome to U.S. style politics eh. Famously this has not been about presenting the merits of your own position but attacking the opposition and undermining the opposition. No one here should say things they cannot verify. Honestly IMO the assertion by Tarc re: d.o.a. was one of the most unnecessarily dramatic, bizarre and unjusified things I have seen on Wiki. I have shown new content. Greg Kaye 14:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @ Omnedon: - With due respect, you were opposed in the last move discussion. What you, and folks like Tarc seem to consistently fail to accept or admit is that the so called "3-admin panel" came to their opinion against a fairly overwhelming majority of respondents (whether you want to call it a "consensus" or not, I really don't care). Until you begin to acknowledge the that fact, statements like "RM's are D.O.A" are simply dishonest. If feel saying such is a personal attack, please, please report me. NickCT ( talk) 14:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

NickCT, to say that I was opposed is an odd way to state it; there were many people on both sides. But what I'm referring to is you calling another editor disingenuous and misleading and applying the term bigoted. Please moderate. Omnedon ( talk) 14:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Omnedon: - re "Odd way" - What? How is it odd. You were opposed. Do you want me to point at the exact line where you wrote opposed?

re "Please moderate." - I'll tell you what Omnedon. I'll moderate as soon as you or Tarc acknowledge that the 3-admin panel over turned a large majority of respondents. The term "bigoted" means one who is obstinately stuck to one opinion. Being unable to acknowledge your opponents' points is the exact behavior of a bigot. The term applies, and is appropriate. NickCT ( talk) 15:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The results of the panel decision speak for themselves. The undisputed fact that there were more on one side than the other does not speak to whether the decision was right or wrong. There being no consensus to make the move, the article was not moved. If you choose to engage in name-calling, that will speak for itself too. Omnedon ( talk) 15:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The broader community spoke, and there seemed to be a clear indication from the broader community that the higher quality argument was the move argument. This was evidenced not by the fact that there were more on one side, but by the fact that there were overwhelmingly more on one side.

I'm not name calling. "Doody head" is an example of name-calling. "I think you're a bigot because you fail to acknowledge others' points", is not an example of name calling. NickCT ( talk) 16:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I see now the source of the confusion on the first issue you mentioned. I read it that I was opposed by others. I see now that you meant that I opposed the move. Of course -- that's not disputed. But that has no relevance in the current discussion. There naturally tend to be people on various sides of any issue. Omnedon ( talk) 15:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It does have relevance, because, oddly, everyone who was opposed (i.e. you and Tarc), doesn't seem to think this discussion is worth having again. NickCT ( talk) 16:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely that is not surprising. The article is where we believe it should be, so naturally I do not think yet another rehash of past rehashes is worth anyone's time. But that does not exclude me from this discussion. It's irrelevant. And I see you are not stopping after all. Omnedon ( talk) 16:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Omnedon: - Even if I stood opposed, if I recognized that consensus on the topic was tenuous, I'd support more discussion, not oppose it. Establishing consensus through discussion to resolve contentious issues is what WP is all about...... Regardless, Omne, I'm really not trying to call anyone names. Now stopped....  ;-) NickCT ( talk) 16:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I just want to note - there was a discussion about having a moratorium on future move requests, with various lengths of time being proposed. I supported that moratorium (I think most of us did), and the amount of time that the community agreed to has now passed. The fact that longer periods were proposed and not accepted suggests to me that the community is not averse to reconsidering the facts on the ground as they evolve over a period of months (in this case, the nine months imposed by the community). Editors who have opposed in the past are likely to continue opposing, and I doubt any new information will change that. The same for editors who have supported in the past. I am frankly most curious to find out what established editors who have not previously participated in this debate think about the matter. bd2412 T 16:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nick, if there hadn't already been reams of discussion, I would agree. I am a proponent of discussion. But there seems to be nothing new here and it's all been gone over many times. If it's discussed, fine -- but I don't see the need in this case, and I'm hardly the only one. Omnedon ( talk) 17:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It was only "controversial" to the grouches who didn't like it. Everyone at the time agreed that it'd be better and fairer if 3 reputable admins were chosen to close the RM so that the result would be on more solid ground and more resistant to whiners who didn't get their way. You don't get to attack the closing admin panel and their findings just because you disagree with the end result; THAT is what is disingenuous. If you have no respect for the community and its members when it reaches a decision on a dispute, then you really have no business participating in a collaborative editing environment. Go blog. Tarc ( talk) 14:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Tarc in addition to your previous misconduct please strike whiners. You have previously assumed bad faith against someone with no previous connection to the topic. From an outsiders perspective I don't see justification for common name and it seems to me that the topic has been misrepresented. Do not be surprised if people complain. Greg Kaye 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Tarc: - Again mis-characterizing the argument. Again strawman argument. I didn't say I was attacking the admin panel because I didn't like their argument. II was attacking the admin panel b/c they overturned the opinion of an overwhelming majority of respondents.

Regardless, I should have learned by now that trying to get rational, level headed, and fair debate from you is like trying to squeeze blood from a stone. I'll quit beating this dead horse, and simply wish you the best in the coming rehash of this debate. NickCT ( talk) 14:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The admin panel did not "overturn" a consensus, they found no conesnsus in the overall discussion. That one side had a numerical advantage shows how weak their argument was, if a smaller number of opinions were able to counterbalance it. Tarc ( talk) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this avenue of discussion does not pertain to the content of the article, I would suggest calling a stop to it until there is something to discuss. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@ BD2412: - Seconded and stopped. NickCT ( talk) 15:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, Prior to the campaign fought with BO, Hillary... announced "I'm Hillary Clinton and I'm running for President". I think that this and anything similar could be added to an OP. Greg Kaye 14:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  So every time Mrs. Clinton does not utter the word "Rodham" when self-referencing, that's like another tally mark on the sheet for you to "prove" Hillary Clinton is the common name? Tarc ( talk) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not merely a tally mark. This was a major event. It is yet another additional factor in what I am increasingly beginning to view as an extremely strong case re: commonly recognisable name. This particular event arguably marked the subject's most notable announcement to date. The announcement was made under the name "Hillary Clinton". Greg Kaye 09:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• I can't believe that this happening again. What about stripping a woman of her own name gives people around here pleasure? It strikes me as being a power fantasy, nothing more. I'm tired of this systemic bias all over the place. RGloucester — ☎ 13:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, someone mentioned the "HillaryClintonOffice.com" website. Well, if one clicks on the "contact" button there, it provides the following address:

Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton

120 West 45th Street
Suite 2700

New York, NY 10036

What a surprise? RGloucester — ☎ 13:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester the surprising thing for me right now is your use of selective reference. In my false starting RM a few days ago I presented: " http://www.hillaryclintonoffice.com/ presents "Hillary Clinton", "CONTACT THE OFFICE OF HILLARY CLINTON", "Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton, 120 West 45th St...".

You had no reason to be surprised at this content. Please try not to present selectively. As you have seen, the text that is presented with greatest type size and boldness is "Hillary Clinton". Greg Kaye 16:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that the crux of the problem? Sometimes the subject, within the same context, basically says I'm Hillary Clinton (P.S. I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton). The use of "Hillary Clinton" as the main and most visible presentation is one data point. Arguably a more significant data point is, how do (actual and potential) opponents refer to the subject, under another very different set of constraints. The most significant set of data points, the responses to a candidacy announcement, has yet to be generated - but will be soon. bd2412 T 14:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is obvious. First of all, the subject has already expressed her preference, and we should not defy that. Second of all, the short name is used in many cases because it is shorter, or because of systemic bias. Certainly, a shorter web address is usually preferable. For example, note an article that appeared in The New York Times today. It starts with "Hillary Rodham Clinton", and then moves to "Mrs. Clinton". The fact remains that her name is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Yes, people will drop part of her name, because they deem it insignificant or too long. That doesn't mean her name has changed. Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has made the conscience choice to keep her name, and it is hers. She has expressed a preference to be referred to as such on Wikipedia. We have no right to strip her of it, nor should we endorse the systemic bias embodied in artificially dropping it. RGloucester — ☎ 15:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

tl;dr!!!! There are many smart editors spilling a lot of wiki-ink (and some tears) about nothing. In the name of all that is holy please just go write an article about something! There's a lot to be done over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing. Wikilove to all! David.thompson.esq ( talk) 22:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict: Omnedon, The last RM got 47 in support and just ~20 in opposition. You mention there being problems without specifying what they are, you don't propose an option of developing the content, when I have been straightforward in my actions here and have not previously been involved in the page, you talk of "gaming the system". I would not even expect democrats to speak like this . Greg Kaye 04:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg, the "gaming the system" to which I referred is the proposed act of adding a specified number of characters ("of whatever value") so as to reach the threshold of 5,000. The whole point of that restriction is that new requests should be thorough and in-depth. Also, there is no need to bring national politics into this procedural issue. Omnedon ( talk) 04:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon It amazes me when people reply to a name yet can't be bothered to ping. Your words were, "Separately, filing a new RM immediately after a withdrawn one will not be helpful to the process." Please cite a guidelines content so as to justify your claim. Having never before edited this widely accessed page I was very surprised to find that it was not written under the articles natural WP:commonname. Reference to Hilary Clinton's personal website then confirmed this view as did a great amount of my own research. I then submitted a succinct and thought filled request to move. In most situations in which something like this had happened an editor might inform a person to retract and then help them follow the the proper procedure for submission. You have been anything but helpful. All you have done is state that there was some nameless objection and then, with no citation of reasoning why I should not resubmit you talk of gaming the system as with the quoted wording. It may be wise to be careful of WP:boomerang as you issue your unsubstantiated warnings. Greg Kaye 17:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon please also note the comment made on close, "The proposal, which of course can be re-made immediately, must be far more in-depth." You applied a ruling that you didn't specify while, even without trying, I was more than halfway there. What is your justification for saying not to resubmit. Greg Kaye 18:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I just want to be clear that my reference to national politics was solely in contemplation of the fact that real-world events can have an enduring influence on the common name of an involved subject (for example, the "Sears Tower" being renamed the "Willis Tower", or "Jenna-Louise Coleman" starting to be credited as "Jenna Coleman"). bd2412 T 12:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. I was thinking of the reference to Democrats. Omnedon ( talk) 12:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A Hillary Clinton move request, considering it is the umpteenth iteration as well as being very close to the upcoming election cycle, smacks of bad-faith and partisan politics. Tarc ( talk) 12:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Tarc Of course its being raised. The article title is not her common name. Please strike your aspersion of bad faith. Check edit histories. I have not been involved in editing in relation to topics related to Hillary Clinton. Please at least make some kind of rudimentary checks before your mud slinging bad faith slurs. The practice that led me to the article was by reading through the list of popular Wikipedia articles to see if any of the titles seemed inappropriate and this one jumped out at me. Its not common name. Please strike. Greg Kaye 18:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of motivation, rehashing this for the umpteenth time is a bad idea. Everyone's time could be better spent elsewhere. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The request has been withdrawn, so there's no rehashing going on at this point. Of course, this is Wikipedia, so any editor can propose to move any page, pretty much at any time. If you want to avoid rehashing of this particular issue, I would think that the thing to do would be to make a proposal at WP:VPP or WP:ANI to extend the moratorium for some reasonable additional period. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing has changed since the last MR, it is absurd to present the same request with no new shift or name change. Seems to me just another editor with too much time on their hands. Such a freaking waste of time. Dave Dial ( talk) 14:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's Assume Good Faith. Not everybody knows the backstory, or the history of this talk page. To THEM it is a new idea, and we do encourage people to WP:Be bold. Closing it was the right thing to do, but there's no need to bash the person who proposed it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Dave Dial All I saw when I was directed withdraw the RM (and warned about gaming should I resubmit) was that the last RM got 47 in support and just ~20 in opposition. This was after seeing evidence of usage which is very indicative of co indicative of common name as hillary clinton. The RM to her commonname was over a year ago. The whole thing seems bizarre to me. Greg Kaye 18:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg, not everyone likes pinging. As for what I've said already, I stand by it. As for the rest -- what was not helpful was this move request and your attitude. You are not a newcomer to Wikipedia, and it is not my job to help you reformulate a bad move request when I don't even agree with it. In any case, all you had to do was read the notes at the top of this page to see that this was problematic, but your research did not go in that direction. There is no policy that states that you cannot file one request after another; but that doesn't mean it is helpful to the process. It is not. Omnedon ( talk) 18:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon Now you are casting slurs about my attitude. Please justify your comments or strike them. You still have not made sense of your statement "I would suggest avoidance of "gaming the system". Separately, filing a new RM immediately after a withdrawn one will not be helpful to the process.". In the Non-admin closure it was even said "The proposal, which of course can be re-made immediately,.." Please cite which part of the system you have been working within here. My attitude is regularly fine until people start making unsubstantiated insinuations and making, as I see it, false restrictions. Which precise process would I not be helping should I have filed a new RM? Greg Kaye 19:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not insinuated anything, nor have I slurred you. I have simply made an observation. I also did not "direct" you to do anything. Let's move on. Omnedon ( talk) 19:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon In a context in which people are being accused of partisan politics I have asked, I think fairly, you to justify your content. Your words were: "I would suggest avoidance of "gaming the system". Separately, filing a new RM immediately after a withdrawn one will not be helpful to the process.". What gaming? What process? "Which precise process would I not be helping should I have filed a new RM?" If we are talking about a system please do not make allusion to content that just is not there. Greg Kaye 05:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Omnedon ( talk) 07:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Omnedon "Asked" yes! and again "Which ... process would I not be helping should I have filed a new RM?" What are you talking about? I am asking a straightforward question regarding qualification of what seems to me to be an utterly unreasonable and I am beginning to assume partisan objection. Greg Kaye 14:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@ GregKaye:, just to follow up on one point, I realize you haven't been involved in this article before, but if you expand the full history at the top of the talk page, there have been at least 9 move requests in the past, all of which have ended up with the article staying where it is. So for those of us who have been working on the content of this article during all this time, you can imagine that going through these move debates again and again gets more than a little tiresome, especially since the same arguments for and against keep getting repeated. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasted Time R While "past" includes pretty much the entirety of known time I think that it is specifically worth pointing out that the first presented move request was in 2007 and a number of the requests didn't progress into substantial discussions as, for various reasons, they were closed down early. Also, I think, of note was that one RM (with 11 in support and 10 in opposition) was temporarily regarded as a successful move. On the basis of information presented below I think that the results of previous RMs have been borderline at best. This is a high traffic article. The title is important. Greg Kaye 07:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg - Indeed the title is important, and it should reflect what her name actually is, how she signs it, what her book covers say, what she prefers - this is not some esoteric detail about her, it's her name. And anyone who doesn't know "Rodham" will get here instantly without it. There is no reason to rehash this again - nothing has changed. We have more important work to do on this article. It's just getting started, and people don't have unlimited time to go over this again and again. It is a gross waste of resources. Tvoz/ talk 21:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tvoz Although I would give some level of support and would certainly add argument for a move I had previously decided, on the basis for sympathy for the position that you have expressed, that I would not submit an RM myself. Although, from a UK perspective (namely mine) the name Rodham seems relatively unused to an extent that the Wikipedia title seems fairly unrepresentative of coverage, H(R)C is US citizen and, from my perspective, an initiation of moves should be your affair.

I have not heard the name Rodham once in the news, say on the BBC, in the run up to the announcement of candidacy or since but, then again, I am not convinced that the BBC would know an ethic if it slappped them in the face. The clincher for me id that I do not see H(R)C using Rodham at all or at least with any prominence in politically relevant situations such as, in facebook, twitter, in promotions, perhaps the text of campaign leaflets, and other feeds that are presented in politically expedient situations. I don't see that H(R)C gives investment into the name Rodham in places other than when it might also make an additional talking point and, should there be other issues. I also object to the presentation of selective reference out of context, such as below, which seems to me to be presented a lot in this argument. On the side of this issue I am currently arguing strongly at WT:AT that there should be more content/content on encouragement of the provision of description and I would also like there to be recognition of, for instance, any ethical issues that editors may see to be important. Also, in parallel with your points the issue of "precision" comes a lowly third place in the list of WP:CRITERIA which also seems nonsensical to me. I would suggest that instead of editors gaming the system here that they do something to change it. Greg Kaye 05:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"In politically relevant situations" (that is well-worn claim, by the way, [1], one for which the title of this article has not been changed before) yet, it is not the situation of this article, which situation is encyclopedic biography of a woman, a person (not politics) - Wikipedia is seeking to encyclopedically educate about the person, the woman who among other places -- recently to Wikipedia -- said the subject's name is, Hillary Rodham Clinton - which name is extremely well attested to in the high quality reliable sources of biography, and is in encyclopedic register. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Other high quality sources not directly pertaining specifically to biography but whose outputs contribute significantly to recognisability of names include mentioned Washington Post and Independent newspapers. Greg Kaye 11:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We are not writing news, we are writing encyclopedic biography. Any claim that Hillary Rodham Clinton is unrecognizable is moreover without foundation in fact. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I seriously suggest that you have another look at WP:AT to see how we operate here. Greg Kaye 06:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)