Talk:Chelsea Clinton/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Suggestive pic of Chelsea?

Could someone explain why it is absolutely necessary to have two pics of Chelsea doing exactly the same thing within days of each other (speaking publicly on behalf of her mother's campaign) in this article? While the pics are free and fine, two such on the same subject appear aggressively and insistently stupid. The pic in the infobox appears a wee bit suggestive -- mouth, bulbous microphone. Eh, I think we can do without this pic. Any comments? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestive or no, I see no problem using a different image: [1] is more direct and has no props. JNW (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chelsea_Clinton_in_2008_cropped.jpg

For the infobox it is very dark. Personally I think both pics are quality and dissimilar in appearance and are free and already long term in the article, so they are stable and free, so to speak and one is good , very good for the infobox and the other is good to represent the campaign. Off2riorob (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's too dark. Her face is brightly lit. It's an excellent picture and far surpassses what is presently in the infobox. May I politely and very respectfully ask why we are all bound to abide by your judgement? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I seem to have walked into what may be an ongoing edit war--no intent to take sides here, just responding to the image question. JNW (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not something I want. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the pic at right. Chelsea appears sweetly virginal, expectant, hopeful, looking forward in the springtime of life to a wonderful future, and resemblances to both parents are obvious. The picture could probably be cropped by an experienced user and reentered. The present infobox pic initially made me think I was looking at a gal from the Emperor's Club VIP triumphantly leaving court or something. I didn't know who it was until I read the caption and even then I said, "No way." Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The quality of the picture and consensus for its use are really the important things. User:DrJunge was very helpful with File:SalvatoreCassano.jpg, which was the infobox picture on Salvatore Cassano when there were no others to be found. (It has since been replaced by an official FDNY picture.) Perhaps DrJunge would be willing and able to help with this picture, or to suggest someone else.  Frank  |  talk  06:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

← "Sweetly virginal"? and the original one was described on my User talk page as "suggestive - wide open mouth and bulbous microphone. Call me old-fashioned, but it actually excites disgust and mirth." I don't know exactly what's going on here with these comments, but these are not the criteria we normally apply to our choice of photos. On the substance of the objection, this article can easily support having two photos of Chelsea speaking for her mother (see, e.g., Caroline Kennedy's 2 very similar shots of her campaigning for Obama) - Chelsea's campaigning is the way the public was (re-)introduced to her as an adult, after years of her being out of the spotlight, and we go into that in a great deal of detail in the article. I personally like the photo we;ve had as the infobox photo [2], as it has an active appearance and is well-lit, giving a good view of her. I think the one shown above [3] is ok, but no more than ok as it is poorly lit, and her expression is rather deer-in-the-headlights whereas the other one has a more natural expression, an active stance, a genuine smile and is brighter and more appealing. Even with the bulbous microphone. Neither one is a portrait, but my preference for the infobox from those available is definitely this. Tvoz/talk 08:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But a "bulbous microphone" is a phallic symbol and held close to the open mouth is very suggestive. The more I look at the pic, the harder I laugh. It's very suggestive. Anyway, I support using the lovely photo above and tweaking it a bit. The resemblance to Bill and Hillary is more obvious. Additionally, the pic is very "neutral". She's doing nothing other than smiling and having her pic snapped. It's a more appropriate pic for the infobox. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the "darkness" aspect of it, given that she is wearing dark clothes and there's a dark background, is a legitimate complaint. But that can be fixed; have you made attempts to do so? It is understood you prefer this picture; there does not appear at this point to be WP:CONSENSUS to use it. Continuing to express the same opinion isn't likely to change that; finding some way to improve the picture might.  Frank  |  talk  17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And, there may be other candidate photos, such as this one.  Frank  |  talk  17:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank, any idea what "some rights reserved" means as stated on the flickr page? I don't see that it explicitly says it's free use. If it is, I would consider it for the infobox - but at the moment I think still prefer what we've been using. I'm glad to think about it though. Thanks for your help here, Frank, as always.Tvoz/talk 18:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic basically commons compatible. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, of course - those little doohickeys to the left of "some rights reserved" - I never even noticed them. Thanks Rob. (I still prefer the photo we have, but am open to talk about it of course.)Tvoz/talk 20:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't tweak the photo because I have no skills there. And I can't ask someone else to do it because there's the chance that hours of work on the thing will be shot down. I think the "neutral" photo is OK as is and can be entered now. I can't mention this again because I think there's some sort of punishment dealt those who talk about one thing. Anyway, the current pic will give me a giggle every time I access the article and that's not a bad thing. I like the other pic too. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You most certainly can - and should - ask someone else to do it; let others decide if their time and effort are worth spending on a task, or indeed if they think it can be done and if it will actually improve the picture. By not asking, you are saying "I want it this way and no other way." That's not how to build a project. Do you imagine that others (or do you yourself) edit Wikipedia only if their (or your) work is the final version and that if it's changed, there's no point in editing because the work was "shot down"? If so, you are in the wrong place. It says so on every page you edit, just below the "Save page" button.  Frank  |  talk  18:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To address the initial comment in this thread, I do not think there is anything wrong with the photo that is currently in the infobox. It does not seem "suggestive" at all. As Dr. Freud might have said if he were here, sometimes a microphone is just a microphone. That issue aside, I think it is a better photo than the one on this page, which is kind of an odd image for the reasons suggested (yuk yuk) by Tvoz. Neutron (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Cropped images

• - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chelsea_Clinton_microphone_Philadelphia_2008.JPG

• - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chelsea_Clinton_Speaking_2008_Campaign.JPG

I've eliminated much "wasted space" in two of the main page pics, and, as the images are under discussion, I'm asking that these two be considered to replace the "wasted space" images now present. For some curious reason, the image to the left seems to me to minimize the suggestiveness of the original. Much background distraction is elminated in the cropped version - especially a hand that appears to be reaching for Chelsea's backside. I tried both out in the infobox and the campaign section. They actually work much better than what is present at this time. The pic on the right eliminates that horrible shadow on Chelsea's right and much of her dark coat/dress/whatever. Because it does, her face looks brighter. It's a lovely picture and conveys so much more warmth, personality, and beauty than the original does. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a hand reaching for her backside? Please. No one other than you has come forward with any concern that the original picture is "suggestive", and I for one, do not see any need to "fix" the infobox shot. I prefer the original - it's not "wasted space", it's context: we see the Clinton banner, her raised hand, and it is more apparent that it is taken at a campaign appearance than the cropped closeup of her face with the microphone that you've renamed the picture to highlight. Similarly, the crop of the second picture makes it just a headshot, and not particularly interesting, but the original doesn't have much context either, so I'm trying one [4] that shows the Hillary banner and is more illustrative of the article which is what the purpose of these photos is in the first place. This section is not about her warmth and personality, it's about her campaigning. Tvoz/talk 07:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Another pic entry

• - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChelseaClintoninWisconsin.jpg

Another pic has been entered for the campaign section. This may be the best of all. With her furrowed brow, Chelsea appears more mature, more philosophical. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I was in process of trying it on the page and posting the above explanation. Please don't crop out the context, by the way - that is the point of its inclusion, not her appearance. Tvoz/talk 07:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In light of the above, I'm inserting the picture now as there's no reason to assume there will be objections from anyone else - we would need to wait for consensus if there were objections (as there were for the other pics). If that happens I'll remove and we can discuss, but no reason now as far as I can see. Tvoz/talk 08:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A good picture with some great background! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Insistent reverts

I'm wondering why you insistently revert my work? The brief edit summaries are not enough to satisfy my curiousity and I seek a more in depth explanation. I left the article once out of frustration only to have you ask me to reconsider and return. I return and you insistently revert, rephrase, delete, and otherwise exercise control over every aspect of the article as (apparently) some sort of self-appointed "Editor-in-Chief". I don't understand and find such behavior disruptive. Please explain. I need to know why we are expected to abide by your judgement on every aspect the article. I wonder if there's a teasing, taunting "ownership" issue going on here? You did say you've worked on the article a long time and I'm wondering if you feel your territory is being invaded. I hate to think that and would like that nightmare laid to rest. Please give me some reassurance that you do not have ownership issues. Only you can help! Please do. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This was also posted on my talk page, and I responded there. I see no reason to say it all again - if other editors want to discuss this further, please do it here on the article talk page. Tvoz/talk 08:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And I see the same paragraph also was posted on AN/I, although without saying who the nefarious editor is (i.e., me) who is being addressed. I was not notified of the AN/I complaint and saw it after it was appropriately marked "resolved", so I didn't respond there either. I think some counseling about how things work on Wikipedia may be in order, but I've already tried. Tvoz/talk 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

← On second (actually, third) thought, I am going to post my reply to the above here for the record:

Susanne, I have to tell you I find this comment borderline insulting. "Teasing", "taunting"? Where do you see that? Ask anyone who has edited with me if they'd describe my comments that way. With all respect, what you seem to be saying is that you have the ownership problem. If you'll look again, you'll see that I'm not the only one reverting some of your edits, so you might think about why that is. I asked you to reconsider leaving because, as I said then, I think you are a good writer and you were overreacting to the reverts that three editors made to material you inappropriately posted about on AN/I. I thought we would be able to work together, but honestly at this point I think maybe you were right, that you should move on to something else. I don't own this or any article, and I certainly don't think I'm "editor in chief", which would be pretty delusional on Wikipedia. I mentioned that I've been working on this article for several years, and also on numerous other articles related to personalities connected to the past Presidential election including the candidates, family members etc., to indicate that I am not just passing by and reverting changes willy-nilly - I have knowledge of the subject and a sense of how these articles have been shaped and edited for a long time, so I'm not "insistently reverting" your work - in fact I found much of what you have done to be a big improvement to what was a sketchy piece before the recent influx of source material became available. But I also wonder if you have brought a POV to your editing whereby you look for material to insert that puts her in a negative light with an over-reliance on tabloid-ish, celebrity, gossipy sources which are not the neutral reliable sources we want to be using. Balance does not mean for every positive thing said we need to have a negative - it just doesn't work that way. So I don't know what to tell you - this article is not my work and not your work - like all of the encyclopedia it is a collaborative effort which means that everyone's additions are subject to rephrasing, rewriting, reverting, reinstating, and so on. I'm not rephrasing your work, I'm looking at the words that are there and editing them as I think they should be. I try to leave edit summaries to explain why I'm making changes (you could do more of that) and when there's an issue or disagreement that calls out for more discussion I post on talk and try to reach a consensus of the editors who are participating here. (A recent example would be the talk page discussion of her surname.) I'm sorry if this is not a comfortable process for you, but it is the way it is - especially on articles about American politics and its associated characters. (Although I have to say I have been witness to much more bloodletting on articles about The Beatles.) You are more than welcome to edit any article you want to edit, but you need to accept that the words you put on the page may well be gone before you can catch your breath - and it's not a reflection on you or your talents. But discussion on Talk is always an option. Tvoz/talk 07:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC) [5]

Susanne - There are a handful of people who have made guarding their point of view on this article a life's work. I learned quickly that any edit/revert can be justified by Wikipedia principles if those principles are contorted sufficiently, or if they may be simply thrown out by name without further explanation. Even if senior editors concur with you, it only takes a few people willing to put the time in to develop what passes for a "consensus" - with no reasoning and carrying its own, unadmitted, POV. John2510 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of these nefarious behaviors, associated with this article, as you've claimed? I'm a little mystified; Chelsea is barely notable in my opinion, and such claims make this article seem like a real battleground, which I don't see at all.  Frank  |  talk  18:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I had my personal experiences with that here and on the BLP discussion page in attempting to reach a neutral POV description of her father-in-law (I do note the WikiNews blurb on the wedding describes him neutrally in the manner I suggested: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Chelsea_Clinton_marries_Marc_Mezvinsky_in_Rhinebeck,_New_York). I also see it in Susanne's experiences. While most of Susanne's descriptions of Chelsea strike me as glowing to the point of being a little sappy (sorry, Susanne), she's ironically accused of trying to portray her in a negative light, and thus evidencing a negative POV. An editor with whom I disagreed contacted me and suggested I should come to grips with the fact that "Wikipedians... have a left leaning bias." Those are my experiences and observations on the subject. Given, as you say, that Chelsea is barely notable, its scary to contemplate how NPOV could realistically be achieved on articles regarding notable poltical figures. John2510 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I was asking for specific examples of the nefarious behavior you described; do you have any?  Frank  |  talk  21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes... and I provided it. That's all I'm going to do. It's not appropriate for me to argue with you about it here, and won't do it at pointless length. John2510 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying a thing is so does not make it so. You say you provided examples, but you did not; you provided your own interpretation and/or summary of your "experiences and observations". That's not the same as providing actual examples; the only link you provided was not only not on this article, it wasn't even on this project, and in any case, you listed it as a place where you were satisfied. Take the high road if you like ("That's all I'm going to do") but don't imagine you actually answered the request. I'm not being argumentative; I'm asking you to support what amount to gratuitous assertions until and unless you actually show examples of the behavior you are decrying. If you can't (or won't) do that, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.  Frank  |  talk  02:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nor does saying a thing is not so, make it not so. I've learned quickly that a willingness to generate a volume and repetition of words, regardless of merit, dominates in this medium. I won't be baited into attempting to prove this to your satisfaction. You win... such as it is. John2510 (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the accusation that Wikipedians have a left-leaning bias, I say if it is of little consequence whether that's true or not; the encyclopedia itself should strive for NPOV regardless of any real or perceived bias in any (or all) of its editors. Editors with a point of view are expected; it would be truly odd to find folks with no bias. The trick is to not let it pervade articles. If you feel that standard hasn't been reached here, I would ask you (and anyone) to show where that is, propose changes, and work to make it a better article. And it doesn't matter to me what bias you hold; the goal is to improve the encyclopedia.  Frank  |  talk  21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but,at some point... you're just butting your head against the wall. The concept of consensus is great, and probably works pretty well on purely academic matters, but it won't overcome a majority pointed view on political or other especially pointed issues. That will probably always be a limitation of the medium. John2510 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Schuster's remark

I am puzzled with the inclusion of the following: "Controversy arose when MSNBC’s David Shuster said that Clinton was being "pimped out" by her parents for the campaign. Shuster was later suspended for his remarks."

Is this relevant? Why? And why is Shuster's suspension relevant to this article? While I can live only marginally with the first sentence, I think the second displays a bias and can be deleted. Some may interpret its inclusion here as "agreement" on Wikipedia's part with the suspension. Others may see Schuster's suspension as a violation of his "freedom of the Press". I think it best the passage be deleted. It says nothing about Chelsea. Comments. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a major news event in the US. Perhaps it could be phrased better, but yes, I believe it is directly relevant to the section about Chelsea's campaigning, including the (temporary) suspension - we're neither endorsing nor opposing, just reporting. The suspension is relevant, I believe, because it indicates that the hands-off policy that we discuss a lot in the article was not completely over. Whether anyone thinks that's good or not is not relevant, and doesn;t appear in the text. Tvoz/talk 08:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Could the "pimped out" term used here be paraphrased? It's crudely suggestive and may confuse the unhip because "pimp(ed) out" is not found in the average home dictionary. I didn't know what it meant until I asked my dad and then he was a bit red-faced trying to explain. Anyway, our job as editors is to clarify, not confuse. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of your use of the term "sweetly virginal" to describe a modern 20-something woman and you not knowing what "pimped out" means is...unusual. Nevertheless, it's a quote; I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether or not it belongs, but if it's in, paraphrasing doesn't work. The specific term was what caused the controversy.  Frank  |  talk  16:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The incident is detailed in the David Shuster article. Perhaps we could link it? Here we may need say no more than: "In February 2008, MSNBC news anchor David Shuster made a vulgar remark about Chelsea and her parents that resulted in the Clinton campaign demanding an apology and Shuster's two-week suspension from MSNBC." Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There are major problems with that wording: you are drawing a conclusion by the use of "vulgar remark"; it is our job around here to record what happened. What happened was that he said "pimped out", which is common although not necessarily widespread in modern American usage, and is not, in my opinion, widely regarded as "vulgar". (I will certainly agree if you claim that "pimp" is largely associated with vulgarity, but the term "pimped out" is idiomatic and responded to differently.) In addition, the sentence you wrote makes it more about Shuster than about Clinton, which isn't appropriate in an article about Clinton. Finally, it forces the reader to go to another article to find out what was actually said, when just reporting the quote succinctly right here summarizes the matter quite nicely. Again, my opinion is this: if it's going to be mentioned in this article, short and un-dramatic is perfectly appropriate. There's no need to provide WP:EUPHEMISMs; he said what he said, and again - that was what the controversy was about.  Frank  |  talk  17:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the passage should be rephrased because there are many who will not understand "pimped out" and will not find a definition for it in the dictionary. It's a hip word, slang, and will date the article. Five years hence, readers will be even more confused by the term and asking, "Huh?" Our job is to record accurately, but it is also our job to clarify, not confuse. Actually, I'm beginning to like it. The more I read the passage, the harder I laugh. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think a word which is variously reported as having entered the English language somewhere around 400 years ago is going to disappear completely in five years. In addition, though the article is somewhat in dispute, you could read a short description of its usage over the centuries right here on Wikipedia, at pimp.  Frank  |  talk  17:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that all mention of Schuster's remark and its aftermath has now been removed from this article on the grounds of "negativity." I do not think that is appropriate. Susanne, I think that material should be put back. It also appears you have removed the material about Chelsea Clinton's handling of questions regarding her parents' private life. I am more "on the fence" about whether that should be in the article, but the Schuster stuff really should go back in. It was a statement by one high-profile figure about another, and directly related to her role in the campaign. I personally think the incident is not negative as it relates to Chelsea, because I think the remark by Schuster was terrible and that he deserved to be suspended. But it still belongs in the article. Also, Susanne, you raised the issue about this material, nobody agreed with you, two editors disagreed with you, and then almost a week after the last comment on the subject, you suddenly removed the paragraph. I don't think that's the right way to go about things here. Neutron (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is just partisan tittle tattle and is not noteworthy, it actually detracts from the simple inmformative details that are, that she spoke at one thousand universities in support of her mother, that a long term noteworthy thing, the fact that at one of them someone asked her something about a single thing is simple partisan cherry picking. The detail about Schuster is a noteworthy thin in his life and better on his article if he is notable enough for one. Sometimes less is more. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And other times less is not enough. Like in this case.  :) I think we could live with or without the stuff about her responses to question about her parents. But I think a comment made on national TV about her, in relation to her famous parents, which drew a lot of attention due to its outrageousness, belongs in her article. Neutron (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Neutron here - but in fact I think both matters should be included - both Shuster and the questions about Lewinsky/impeachment received a fair amount of news coverage in the US during the campaign, and the significance is that her emergence in such high profile on the national scene was somewhat unexpected and a matter of interest and discussion to many Americans, changing the way she was seen, not least of which is how she would handle the press and questions about her parents. (Not unlike Caroline Kennedy's dropping of her private stance to campaign for Obama - this was a major change in Chelsea's public image and appropriately is handled as such in her bio here.) I think we should go back to this as a fuller, separate section (not a subhead under "education and professional life", as it is neither), and maybe I missed it, but why were the photos removed? BLPs are encouraged to have photos when appropriate, and the two photos we had in this section were illustrating the text and I see no reason for their removal. This characterization of legitimate material as "negativity" has been shot down here over and over again, so removing it on that ground is out of line. And particularly so since one editor who claims to be concerned about negativity has insisted that the specific mean-spirited Limbaugh personal insult ("dog") addressed to a 13 year old be included in the text. In other words, in what universe is it ok to specify the personal insult referring to her appearance when she was a young adolescent who was thrust into the limelight by circumstance for which there were no repercussions to the mouth who spewed it, but "negativity" to include the insulting comment that was made about her as an adult who had put herself in the public eye, and for which there were repercussions? I'd remove the word "dog" which adds nothing, and I'd keep Shuster and answering press questions. The recent spate of edits, in my opinion, went too far in slash-and -burn - this is not an overly long article, so we don't right now have the pressure of needing to cut, to that degree. I am not in favor of general bloat (which is why I removed the stuff about her posting on Facebook, etc), but these incidents were specific and are notable to be included. And I certainly don't see why we'd short-change coverage of this significant year of campaigning for her mother in an article that devotes much space to her year at Oxford - I don't want to cut Oxford, mind you, but why are we smashing the campaign year? Tvoz/talk 21:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as it pains me ;) I have to agree 100% with what Tvoz has said, for the reasons she stated here and I stated in the "Negativity" section. While it's always subject to improvement, a lot of effort has gone into making this nonpartisan and giving it due weight. It's not cherry picking, since it covers all of the noteworthy events of her participation in the campaign. If there are others, let's add them, rather than deleting these. Removing something about a public figure based solely on the claim that the facts may tend to cast that or another person in a negative light (the basis stated here) is simply not supported by Wikipedia policy (and would be inapplicable here in any event). An assertion that inclusion is partisan can always be made on anything regarding a political figure - positive or negative. The fact that it is notable and presented wp:npov are the appropriate standards. John2510 (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John. See, that wasn't so hard!. But seriously.... I agree completely with John's comments on this and think we should reinstate this section (including photos), which I think was the last one before the cutting, and work from there with any refinements that might be needed. Tvoz/talk 18:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Tvoz, I see you have reinstated that part of the section, and I agree with most of it, but not with the part about Phillipe Reines and his role at Chelsea Clinton's appearances. I read the source, and it is partly an opinion piece. If it were published on Wikipedia it would be called "original synthesis." And the part that is paraphrased in our article is the opinion part. And politico.com has been accused of having a Republican tilt. So I think this sentence(s) should go, unless there is another, more reliable source for these statements. The other alternative is, the article on Reines contains a much more neutral paraphrase of the same politico.com piece, maybe we should substitute the one here for that one. Neutron (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes,I'm glad you mentioned that - the Reines sentence has been bothering me for a while too; I don't think it's needed at all. Let's try it without it and see how that feels. Tvoz/talk 05:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I dunno. I didn't know anything about the issue, but came up with this CBS account: "Top Clinton Aide Guards Chelsea From Press," that says pretty much the same thing, perhaps even more strongly worded than Politico (which, BTW, I've always found to be pretty balanced) . Without some mention, the reader is left in the dark on how press questions were handled. It seems to be more a question of its significance than its accuracy. It could probably be toned down a bit from the past phrasing. John2510 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about, "Philippe Reines, her mother's press secretary, intervened when the press attempted to approach Chelsea directly." and then source to both politico and CBS? That addresses how direct press inquires were handled, but avoides using "shield" "protect" or anything that might even remotely be construed as judgmental. John2510 (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Tvoz/talk 07:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. In looking more closely at the CBS source, I noted it was actually just a repackage of the Politico article, so I didn't cite CBS separately. Still, phrased the way it is now in the article, I think it's helpful and neutral... absent some other source on how she generally handled press questions. John2510 (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

2008 Convention

I think the Campaign section should/could end with Chelsea's participation in the 2008 Dem Conv. I found some material about her participation but it is sourced principally to People magazine, which is considered not a high quality source for BLPs. I'm wondering if others feel this material could be used here in spite of the source's reputation because only facts are reported - not interpretation or analysis of the facts. Should the material be rejected, may I enlist others to help me locate quality sources on Chelsea's participation? I can't imagine the NY Times, the Washington Post, or other quality sources would neglect to mention Chelsea's appearance. I will continue to look. Even without the People citation, there's enough to create a few sentences for the section.

From "People" (my paraphrase):

On August 26, 2008, the second day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, Chelsea introduced Sen. Clinton as "my hero and my mother" and narrated a video tribute to her. She referenced her mother's childhood dream of becoming an astronaut and observed, "[S]he didn't become an astronaut, but she did reach for the stars, something she always will continue to do." Chelsea remained seated on the podium when her mother took the stage, and repeatedly stood to join the applause. Chelsea stayed in Denver for her father's address the following evening, then returned to her job in New York City. [6]

From "ABC News":

Sen. Clinton described herself at the very top of her address as "a proud mother". [7]

From "NY Daily News" (my paraphrase):

At the August 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, it was thought Sen. Clinton would be introduced by her husband, but it was Hillary's idea to have her daughter introduce her, possibly as a symbolic gesture to her many female supporters. Thomas Defrank, the NY Daily News Washington Bureau Chief, observed, "The 28-year-old Chelsea, once shy and ill at ease in public settings, was one of her mother's most effective surrogates in the bitter primary campaign, making dozens of appearances and winning praise for her poise on the trail." [8]

From the BBC:

Sen. Clinton's husband was in tears as she acknowledged a standing ovation which stretched on for two or three minutes after Chelsea stood on stage and introduced her as "my hero and my mother".[9]

Hillary Clinton was welcomed to the stage by her daughter Chelsea, who said: "I am proud to introduce my hero, my mother." [10]

From "The NY Times"

Introduced by her daughter, Chelsea, who called her "my hero," Mrs. Clinton was met with a lengthy, loud standing ovation.[11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanne2009NYC (talk • contribs) 5:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is some Definitive Ruling to the contrary, I do not see why People Magazine would not be considered a reliable source for a news item such as this. People is not, for example, the National Enquirer. It should be no less capable of quoting people accurately than its sister publications such as Time, which I think all would agree is a reliable source. Obviously we would not be quoting opinion and gossip from People, but this is actual news which is relevant to the article. Neutron (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite my earlier comment (just below)I actually agree with this point - stay away from opinion and gossip from People, but their news reporting and quoting should not be a problem - they are indeed a Time Inc pub and reliable for quotes, especially if we don't have "better" sources like WSJ or NYT. Tvoz/talk 00:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I also think the section should end with the convention and added two short sentences to that effect last night with WSJ reference which is better than People - I didn't see this section on Talk until just now, sorry. Problem with earlier incarnation in the text, I think, is that it was bloated, in addition to weak reference. Any objections to the new text/refs? Tvoz/talk 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be tweaked a bit. Perhaps the Defrank quote above could be incorporated somewhere in the text of this section. Tho it's opinion, it's a highly qualified opinion. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph ....

"The first time she was asked about her mother's reaction to the Lewinsky scandal at a campaign stop she responded, "I do not think that is any of your business".[34] But as she became a more experienced campaigner she addressed her father's impeachment directly, with comments like "If that's what you want to vote on, that's what you should vote on."[34][40]"

I think it needs to be clarifed that CC was speaking to a well-meaning, well-intentioned university student here. Previously in the section, she is depicted brushing off a well-meaning little kid and the reader could thus assume she snapped at another little kid here ... or a decorated WWII vet, or a mom whose sons were serving overseas, or whatever. This entire "campaign section" has been trimmed to the point where Chelsea comes off rather poorly indeed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I clarified that it was a college student but am not so sure he was well-meaning, nor was the audience at the time, despite what he claimed afterward. (Donald Segretti comes to mind.) So I don't think we want to characterize him either way - "college student" makes your point. And I think it is worded neutrally. Tvoz/talk 23:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no indication in the press he was less than well meaning. We should assume good faith in the student and the press. We should record what the sources state, not edit the source material in such as way as to reflect our personal take on events. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the several negative incidents that present Chelasea and her parents poorly can be removed without damging the section. They are superfluous and present the Clintons as basically arrogant snobs above our fundamental rights (we don't have to answer questions from the American people). Chelsea couldn't answer a little kid's simple question, the Clintons got a journalist suspended because he was exercising freedom of speech and press, and Chelsea rebuffed a university student because she was unprepared. It would be best to eliminate these three incidents as they do nothing to present the Clintons in a neutral light whether the incidents are true or not. We can revise this material to the the last trumpet but they will always present the Clintons in a bad light. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph can be cut to no mention of the student:

"The first time a college student asked about her mother's reaction to the Lewinsky scandal at a campaign stop she responded, "I do not think that is any of your business".[34] But as she became a more experienced campaigner she addressed her father's impeachment directly, with comments like "If that's what you want to vote on, that's what you should vote on."[34][40]"

Let's try:

After one stop in which she dismissed a question about her mother's reaction to the Lewinsky scandal, Chelsea began to address the subject of her father's impeachment with directness.

Stop this. Not two hours ago you objected to leaving off "college student" here - I didn't think it made much difference, but added it. Now you think it shouldn't be there? Enough. This is trolling, plain and simple and you are wasting our time. Tvoz/talk 02:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to look at all angles of this. Every time I come to the article something has been revised, forcing all of us to reread and reconsider. IMO, some of your revisions do not place the subject in a neutral light and the point of this page is to discuss this sort of thing. Can you admit that sometimes you can be wrong? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree completely with Tvos' tone, I also don't agree with either the current phrasing nor your proposed edit. Describing the incidents and letting readers make their own judgments is better than an editor characterizing the incidents. Accurately describing the questioner and including her quotes achieves that. I would propose to remove the word "directly," as even her later responses aren't, by any means, a direct answer to the question ("less dismissively" would actually be the accurate characterization... but I know that's not going to fly with this crowd). Bios shouldn't bash, but nor should they avoid facts simply because they may, in the view of some, cast the person in a negative light. I'm a fan of putting the facts out their as neutrally as possible and let them speak for themselves. BTW, while I don't dispute it, I don't see a reference to her later version of a response in either source. John2510 (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made this edit, which I think accurately characterizes the response in a NPOV manner. I think it's fair to say that she considered the question inappropriate and chose not to answer it (i.e., "deflected" it). Whether that was the right thing to do, is for the reader to decide. I think most probably think it was... but, again, that's for the reader to decide. I also added a source. John2510 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this improvement. I added the second part of the quote to make the deflection (rather than dismissal) even clearer. Tvoz/talk 22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Position of pictures

Yes, I know that the MOS:IMAGES guideline says it is "often preferable" to have the faces/eyes facing toward the text, and agree with it, but the reason I made the exception and switched the positions of the 2 shots in the HRC campaign section was because that positioning allowed the text to flow better (visually) and the next header was naturally flush left as is best. With the pix positioned this way (Chelsea on the right, convention on the left), the Engagement header falls in the middle and requires the "clr" tag for the header to look best. That's ok with me, although some may not like the extra white space that is also introduced as a result. So I think the best solution is to not follow the suggestion about pix facing inwardly for this one picture, so that the overall page looks best. I do want that header flush left, as Jake also mentioned, so either solution that accomplishes that is ok with me. This is a fairly weak guideline, by the way, so I don't think the photo police will really care if the face looks in or outward.Tvoz/talk 23:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The pic of CC is a rather poor one. In the first place, the she appears haggard. Her hair is a mess and her clothes are drab. Positioning her away from the article only furthers the negative impression of this photo. As you mentioned, the photo was not selected to depict Chelsea as a warm, beautiful person but only to illustrate her activity. There's a lot in this section that creates a negative impression of Chelsea.

See Talk:Chelsea Clinton#Another Pic Entry. Really? Which is it, "A good picture with some great background" or "rather poor"? Tvoz/talk 04:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We also need to know what was asked when she told someone it was "none of your business." Otherwise the reader may assume she was asked something salacious like, "Did your dad do things with Monica your mom refused to do?" which she wasn't asked and this should be made clear. Nothing should be left to the reader's imagination. "Pimped out" has already been mentioned and with this still fresh in the reader's mind, it's only a stone's throw to such a thought. In the other instance, the reader is left wondering why she couldn't answer a little kid's simple question, and concludes she's cold, rude, and might have better served America by staying home. There's a lot of negativity in the campaign section. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The reader might be left with any number of impressions. But where is the "little kid" construct coming from? Are you referring to the bit about the Scholastic News reporter asking if her dad would be a good "First Man"? OK, so we don't need it; the point it makes (if any) is that she refused to answer questions from all reporters, period. It doesn't (or didn't) have to be about Lewinsky or whatever...it appears to have been a 100% consistent policy. Why is that negative? It is just how things were run, period.  Frank  |  talk  02:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Scholastic girl. I would not remove it - it is a well-known vignette from the campaign that gives some content to the statement that she would not talk to the press. Also, we do, in fact, say what she was asked when she said "I do not think that is any of your business" - as the sentence says, she was "asked about her mother's reaction to the Lewinsky scandal". This in no way suggests the "salacious" manufactured comment above. As it is, after bloating the article with tiny detail, now it's being suggested, by the same editor, that it be denuded to almost nothing - that extreme is no better than the first. Tvoz/talk 04:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Negativity in Campaign section

I've removed all that presents Chelsea and the her parents in a negative light and ask thoughts on the following:

Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign

Clinton speaking at the 2008 Democratic National Convention

In December 2007, Clinton began campaigning in Iowa in support of her mother's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. She appeared across the country, largely on college campuses; by early April 2008, she had spoken at 100 colleges on behalf of her mother's candidacy.

On the campaign trail, Chelsea answered audience questions but did not give interviews or respond to press questions, Speaking engagements were usually arranged on short notice and promoted locally, sometimes making it clear that only students would be permitted to attend.

On August 26 at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Chelsea called her mother "my hero" and introduced her with a long video tribute. After this appearance she returned to New York City and her private life. Thomas Defrank, the NY Daily News Washington Bureau Chief, observed, "The 28-year-old Chelsea, once shy and ill at ease in public settings, was one of her mother's most effective surrogates in the ... campaign, making dozens of appearances and winning praise for her poise on the trail."

Your desire to remove negativity, while personally admirable, really is inconsistent with Wikipedia wp:npov policy. Please take a look at wp:WELLKNOWN#Public figures. Given that Chelsea's participation in her mother's campaign is really the only thing she's actively done that is noteworthy, I think it should probably be (at this point in time) the most beefed-out portion of the whole article. John2510 (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Also... I'm not sure how the removed portions present anyone in a negative light in the first place. They do describe how Chelsea has addressed the issue of the Lewinsky scandal - which has some signficance. John2510 (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And what's more... I think it's kind of a sad statement that presently the section on her nuptials is three times as large as the section on her participation in her mother's presidential campaign. John2510 (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Celeb/gossip magazine

Can anyone find a source for this: "Mezvinsky was once an intern at the Clinton White House," and the observation about Chelsea growing up OK in spite of the satire? Both were sourced to a celeb/gossip type mag "Hello" and I've looked for other sources but have found nothing. I think the quote might be found in Bill Clinton's autobio. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Organization of sections

The section called "Engagement and marriage" should really be a paragraph in, or else a sub-section within, a section called Personal Life. Both for reasons of parallel structure with Professional life section, and secondly, and equally if not more importantly, due to being wikipedia convention to have such a Personal Life section. Noteworthy (and referenced) information about her personal life e.g. vegetarian diet, allergies, and other personal life aspects mentioned on this discussion page and elsewhere, could then go under Personal life section (I don't feel strongly whether "[edit] Engagement and marriage" should be paragarph or two, or full sub-section of Personal Life section) Harel (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's often the convention here, but certainly not required. In this instance, at this time, it seems to me the engagement and marriage - and the events surrounding them - are why many readers have been coming to the page and should not be buried along with her allergies. I might feel differently some time later, but for now i think we need this to be a separate section. note also that at present "Marc Mezvinsky" is a redirect to this section, so it is bearing more weight than just the fact that she got married. Tvoz/talk 18:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Advantages through familiy name

It is clearly obvious and suspicious that she went to Oxford. An honoured degree in History is nothing noticeable for studying a subject she has taken in Oxford. By the way, her father was also in Oxford as a student. And then she goes to McKinsey. As it is usual for Americans - they like to pass through a Bachelor's degree in History in order to work for banking business - there is nothing to add... I would be pleased if a section about nepotism would be added. She surely did not make it to McKinsey because of her "efforts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.209.78 (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning Charlotte and Aiden by name?

Apparently Wikipedia has a rule that "non-notable children" can't have their names or exact birthdates mentioned in the article of the parent or parents. I experienced such implementations on Carlos and Alexa PenaVega with their son Ocean. Personally, I disagree with this. It makes it seem like certain celebrity babies are born into notability at an arbitrary pattern. Which just doesn't make sense. So how did an article like this slip under? Are grandchildren of Presidents supposed to be more notable than any other celebrity's children? How is that measured? Why should it be measured--Fradio71 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Dissertation length

Under the section 'University of Oxford', please change '712-page dissertation' to '356-page dissertation'.

My source is the document itself, which is publicly accessible.

The length of 712 pages seems to have come from the cited Google Books entry (note 40), which is not correct. The length of 356 pages is corroborated by the dissertation's entry in WorldCat. This source should replace the Google Books citation.

As the dissertation is approximately 100,000 words (which is both stated on the cover page and within Oxford standards), a length of 712 pages would be grossly outside of normal expectations.

--Sveljkovic (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggested Update to 2016 Election Section

Hi There - I work with Chelsea Clinton and noticed that the section on the 2016 election is incomplete. It selectively highlights one issue that was a very small part of the campaign, so I wanted to offer references to make this more complete. For example as CNN reported, Chelsea was a surrogate for mom throughout the election and did more than 200 public events and gave a keynote speech at the convention.

I’ve included relevant links below for your consideration.

Is there someone that I can email with about this?

Thank you, Sara

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/chelsea-clinton-twitter/index.html (cites the number of events) https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/chelsea-clinton-democratic-convention-speech/index.html (covers DNC introduction and some of her messages for her mother and against then candidate Trump) http://time.com/4429785/dnc-chelsea-clinton-introduction/ (more coverage of her DNC speech) https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/bill-chelsea-clinton-campaign-debut-hillary-clinton-first-major-rally-118388 (Chelsea at the campaign kickoff event) http://www.startribune.com/chelsea-clinton-rallies-voters-in-minneapolis/396250101/ (coverage of a rally in Minneapolis where she touts early voting and immigration reform) https://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/local/2016/04/18/chelsea-clinton-seeks-votes-mom-coltivare/83177576/ (campaign event in upstate New York where she spoke about what is at stake in this election) https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clintons-obamas-rally-20161107-story.html (rally in Philadelphia) http://www.dailycamera.com/local-election-news/ci_30532319/chelsea-clinton-urges-boulder-get-out-vote-our (campaign event in North Carolina where she talked about voter turnout) https://www.bostonherald.com/2016/10/14/chelsea-clinton-stumps-for-mom-at-wellesley-college-rally/ (campaign event in Boston at Wellesley) https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-pennsylvania-women-voters-229107 (event in PA where she spoke about debt-free college plans, combating gun violence and school bullying) https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chelsea-clinton-slams-trumps-misogynistic-remarks-mom/story?id=41932065 (Chelsea gives reaction to then candidate Trump's comments about her mom ahead of a PA stop)

( SaraCHorowitz (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC) )

Thank you, Sara, for posting. I have been one of the lead editors on this page and I have to say I never noticed this before - I agree that it is unbalanced and peculiar and needs to be fixed. Usually we use "summary style", putting the longer details in the main article and shorter summaries here, but that's not what this is and I'm sorry about that. I will look at it and hope other editors will as well - our aim is to be fair and accurate, not present incomplete and slanted reports. Please feel free to email me - there's a link on my user page User: Tvoz on the left side at "Email this user". Tvoz/talk 00:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Source for PhD dissertation

Please change the URL for note 40 (Clinton, Chelsea (2014). The Global Fund: An Experiment in Global Governance. Oxford: University of Oxford) from 'https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Global_Fund.html?id=QFLeoQEACAAJ' to 'http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/908403645', as the WorldCat entry is both more informative and gives the correct page length of 356 (whereas Google Books gives this incorrectly as 712). Sveljkovic (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes the number does appear in the source so that should be fine. Iggy (Swan) 20:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

Change number of kids from 2 to 3. Her third child, Jasper Clinton Mezvinsky, was born July 22, 2019. Publicradiohead20 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I updated accordingly. I did not mention the child's name, given the first two children were not identified by name in the article, either. I did mention gender. Siberian Husky (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Melmann (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Alleged Friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell

There is an ongoing list of news sources that discuss Chelsea Clinton and her alleged friendship Ghislaine Maxwell.

Sources

• https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/21/jeffrey-epstein-trump-clinton-1424120
• https://www.thecut.com/2019/07/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-madam.html."Over the years, Maxwell has been photographed alongside many prominent, powerful people who are linked to Epstein, such as Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, and lawyer Alan Dershowitz. Maxwell was even a guest at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in 2010."
• Further description with photographs in Rolling Stone, https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-arrest-856874/

It's a well-established principle here that just because something is sourced does not mean it is necessarily valid to be included. This is a biography of a person's whole life, and adding this section at this time is giving it undue weight. She attended her wedding? So did a lot of people. How is that a significant matter to Chelsea? Until such a time as it is shown to actually be significant, I think it does not belong, and certainly not as a major headlined subsection. Tvoz/talk 06:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Length of Dissertation

In the body of the Wikipedia article, it is stated that Chelsea Clinton's dissertation "The Global Fund : an experiment in global governance," submitted to the faculty of the University of Oxford, is 712 pages - which is highly problematic. Many non-science/mathematics dissertations are in the 300 - 500 page rangeJulianorobertrj (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC). The Google Books page does, indeed, list the number of pages at 712 (see enclosed link below).

However, the WorldCat page lists the dissertation at 356 pages, a length that seems far more reasonable (see enclosed link below).

The enclosed link below appears to be a link to her dissertation through the ora.ox.ac.uk website. The length of this dissertation is 356 pages.

I recommend getting to the bottom of this by confirming directly with Oxford University the page length of the dissertation.

Julianorobertrj (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Robert E. Juliano (julianorobertrj@gmail.com)

Thank you - there obviously are inconsistencies in the sources - the original world cat source that we had as a note actually says 356 "leaves" not pages, which would be the same as 712 pages (one leaf=two pages, front and back, on 356 pieces of paper; see page (paper) for an explanation of that) which confirms the Google books source and is why we say 712 in the text. But since it's not clear if that's correct, I think the best solution is removing the page count from the article text as it really adds nothing to her bio at all. We don't usually do investigative reporting here - we rely on published sources - so contacting Oxford isn't something I would be inclined to do, especially for what is a trivial point really. I'm making that change - happy to discuss further of course. Tvoz/talk 02:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC).

Chelsea picture.

Could a better picture of Chelsea not be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney (talk • contribs) 14:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverted to previous photo. Tvoz/talk 03:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox including names of maternal relatives but not names of paternal relatives

In the infobox, the following are listed by name as "relatives"

Hugh Ellsworth Rodham (grandfather) Dorothy Howell Rodham (grandmother) Hugh Edwin Rodham (uncle) Tony Rodham (uncle)

There seems to be a strong bias towards including the names of her mother's relatives in the infobox but not including the names of her father's relatives in the infobox. I could rationalizing including her mother's full siblings, but not Roger Clinton, who as only her father's half-brother, or including her mother's parents but omitting either her father's biological father (who died before he was born and therefore never participated in raising him) or his stepfather (who did), but not both. I can't think of any rational basis for including both of her mother's parents but not including her father's mother. 47.139.42.79 (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Changes/locked

Why was Chelsea's inheritance and income removed from site after Hilary went under investigation? 143.244.102.194 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

First, the removal of net worth was in January 2020 and there was no investigation that Hillary "went under". It was removed because it was an unacceptable source and unsourced speculation about net worth is not appropriate here. Tvoz/talk 00:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)