Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

HC & HRC Books

FYI, I've reorganized List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton a bit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: - Nice list. I always found it remarkable how many anti-Hillary books came out in 2007-2008 time frame. Wonder whether the driver there was have the election promote book sales, or to undermine the Clinton campaign, or both? NickCT (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Both. Not that there's anything wrong with it. Edit semi-protected (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

hrod17@clintonemail.com ?

Is it verifiable that Ms. Clinton also used hrod17@clintonemail.com as an email address during her tenure at the state department? I have heard this at several removes that make me doubt its veracity. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was her newer e-mail address, a change necessitated by Gawker publicizing the original one in 2013. Fringe blogs are trying to make scandalous hay out if it apparently, but it seems there's much ado about nothing. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My sole concern was the validity of the address itself, not its use. I am not sure how it could be a GOP "attack" if it's real, the CBS article seems to have a very odd political slant, but I'll assume it's reliable, so long as Dan (false but accurate) Rather wasn't involved. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

And whaddyaknow - it has the "rod" in there. Rod, as in Hillary Rodham Clinton, her name. Just sayin'. Tvoz/talk 21:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is equally noteworthy that this email address was not her first choice. She only changed to it when her first email address, hdr22@clintonemail.com, was made public. Also, she must have been peeved when she went to sign up for hrod@clintonemail.com and found that there were already 16 people before her with the same email address. It probably stands for "hot rod", since she could have spelled out "Rodham" if she had wanted. bd2412 T 22:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe she didn't want anyone to be confused. I doubt there were already 16 people on clintonemail.com with hrod ahead of her or 21 with hdr - there must be another explanation than that. I'm just pointing out that Rodham has never been abandoned (as in hdr too) contra what some have argued regarding her campaign and/or ballot listings. Just a comment in passing - not interested in a rehash! Tvoz/talk 00:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mention of Lewinsky scandal in lead

@SNUGGUMS: and @Cwobeel: have both recently removed from the article's lead any mention of the Lewinsky scandal. Which kind of surprises me, because mention of it has been in the lead continuously since 2007, with no one to my memory ever objecting to it being in the lead before. (The wording used to be "The state of her marriage to Bill Clinton was the subject of considerable public discussion following the Lewinsky scandal in 1998" and then somewhere along the way it was changed to the shorter "Her marriage endured the Lewinsky scandal in 1998.")

Now, it may not get as much attention now as it once did, but for a whole year or more, the Lewinsky matter was pretty much the only thing that anyone talked about in terms of either Bill or Hillary, with considerable discussion as to whether Hillary would stay in the marriage and the reasons why she stayed once it was clear she was going to. Her favorability ratings shot upward during the scandal, and some people believe that without that boost she never would have attempted a political career on her own. When Hillary published her first memoir Living History in 2003, the material in it on the Lewinksy matter was what all the interviewers and reviewers focused on the most. In other words, it was a really big deal, and it has its own subsection in the article. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the subject's entire life, it seems to me mention of it should be there. Consider that some percentage of readers never go past the lead and are too young to have witnessed the Lewinsky matter; do you really want them to walk away without seeing it mentioned? I'm certainly open to the wording of it, which was part of SNUGGUMS' objection, but some kind of mention has always been there and I think should continue to be there. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree to removing it if the lead were much shorter, but this lead is pretty big. It includes stuff like, "Hillary Rodham was the first student commencement speaker at Wellesley College in 1969." The Lewinsky scandal was the biggest challenge during her role as first lady, so it seems very apt to include very briefly in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If Lewinsky is included, I at least wouldn't want the wording to be what it was when I removed it. "The state of her marriage to Bill Clinton was the subject of considerable public discussion following the Lewinsky scandal in 1998" would be better than simply "Her marriage endured the Lewinsky scandal in 1998". Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I refuse to engage in a discussion when one editor is choosing edit warring instead of discussing. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton

This discussion is not related to HRC's Wikipedia article specifically, but page watchers may be interested in contributing to the discussion re: the deletion of WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton. Please see the following link: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you much for the announcement. I will be around to support Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, but lurking until the objection gains strength. She may very well be our next POTUS in America. Edit semi-protected (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Location and section header relative to emails controversy

There's been a flurry of changes on this. At issue is:

1. Should the emails controversy be located in the Secretary of State section or in the section that deals with after Secretary of State and before 2016 presidential campaign?
2. Should the emails controversy be its own section?
3. Should the emails controversy be part of the title of an enclosing section?
4. What should the title of that section be?

On the first, I feel strongly that it should not be in the Secretary of State section. The discovery of the issue, the turning over of some of the emails and deleting of other emails, the publishing schedule and demands by the Gowdy committee, all these things are happening in 2015, two years after she left State.

I also don't think it should be its own section, not until we know whether it will achieve major impact upon her life or career. Consider the WP:10 year test – lots of controversies in Clinton's past occupied the headlines at the time, but they don't warrant a separate section now. Indeed the only one that shows up in a header in this article is Whitewater, because for that she was the subject of a long Independent Counsel investigation, which issued formal findings as to her actions, and during which she was subpoenaed to testify before a Federal grand jury. Nothing equivalent to that has happened here. Maybe it will, but it hasn't yet. I get that recentism is a powerful force, but it's our job to resist it as best we can.

As to what the title of the post-Sec State, pre-2016 campaign section should be, there's no great answer for these years when a politician is out of office before staging another presidential run. I've had "Subsequent activities" which is kind of lame. Inclusion of the Clinton Foundation belongs, since she joined it as a named member, was part of a couple of initiatives, then stepped down from it during this period. But what else isn't exactly clear. In a snap reaction last night I made it "Clinton Foundation, emails controversy, and other activities", but as I'm saying here, I think I was wrong to include emails in the header. Better would just be "Clinton Foundation and other activities". Wasted Time R (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the "email controversy" relates directly to her time at Foggy Bottom, insofar as it would not have been an issue if she wasn't the Secretary of State at the time. That said, I think the current coverage in the article is far too much and totally disproportional to its significance. Trying to shoehorn this into the section on State is going to be difficult, because of the current structure of the article (strictly chronological). I think "subsequent activities" is a poor title to describe the period between her time at State and the beginning of her campaign, and it should probably be changed to something else. Part of the problem is that the email issue spans a period from the beginning of her time at State to some point in the future. We need a title that reflects that. If we can find a way to do that, we can then include a mention of the email issue in that section, although I would keep it to something like this:

Beginning in March 2015, Clinton's use of her own private e-mail address and server throughout her time as Secretary of State drew scrutiny from political opponents and the media.

It should only be expanded if, as you suggest, it leads to a major impact upon her life or career. Since it already has its own article, there is no need for us to dwell on the specific details that aren't biographically germane at this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have come here last last night before removing "emails controversy" from the header, then tweaking it to "Clinton Foundation and other post-State Department activities" which I chose because it is more specific than just "other activities" and still think is a consistent title with the approach of this Featured Article. I feel strongly that the article's essentially chronological structure should be preserved, with the email matter a part of this post-State section whatever it's called, rather than in State. Further, in line with the rest of the article, it should not be a separate section unless and until it rises in significance to her whole complex life as we are writing this BLP about. Right now it is indeed disproportional to its significance, given the totality of her life experience. If that changes - if this matter has a significant impact on her life- we'd expand. Tvoz/talk 16:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Scjessey about the amount of text given to this matter; I think what's there now is appropriate. This is not something that just political opponents and scoop-hungry reporters are concerned with. What Clinton did was a bad idea from a computer security viewpoint and a bad idea in terms of preserving the archival historical record. It also showed dubious political judgment, as she should have realized the optics would be poor if it ever became public. For all these reasons it is biographically relevant. As for the section title that includes it, Tvoz's suggestion could be shortened to "Clinton Foundation and post-State activities". This approach to the title does have the advantage that the memoir, speeches, and emails addressed in that section do all relate to her time at State. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That ("and post-State activities") would be fine with me. The amount of text is also ok with me, but not as a separate section which to me is what is disproportionate. Tvoz/talk 02:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

There being no further comments here, I've eliminated the separate subsection for emails since there was clear consensus that was not appropriate. I've changed the enclosing section to "Clinton Foundation and post-State activities", since there seemed to be agreement on that. We didn't discuss it here, but I've also put in 'See also' xrefs at the top of the section to the articles on the foundation and on the emails (they were in some of the earlier formulations). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Moratorium on HC/HRC pagemoves until after November 8, 2016?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we impose a moratorium on page moves on Hillary Clinton during the 2015-2016 campaign season? BusterD (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I was one editor who opposed the move just discussed and closed, but as a longtime Wikipedian I'm concerned about the fallout if we try to remeasure consensus on this issue during the campaign season. I'd like to see what support we could muster to oppose any page moves on this subject until after the US presidential election in 2016. This proposed moratorium is not intended to impede moves related to bringing subpages and related pages in line with the most recent measurement of consensus. BusterD (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  Additional comment: This request is not intended to short circuit any move review procedure, if editors who strongly disagree with the close decide to pursue such avenues. For my part I'm satisfied with the close, though my position is at odds with the outcome. My only interest is in preventing another contentious move discussion while the subject is actually running for office. I'm afraid such a (likely highly politicized) discussion could hurt Wikipedia's reputation, such as it is, of being a good place to get neutral encyclopedic information. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support as explained above. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. As things stand now, it seems like a page move is extremely unlikely given that only a minority has supported such a move during the two major efforts over the past year and a half. However, circumstances can change. Hillary might announce that she wants everyone to only call her Hillary Rodham Clinton, or just Hillary, and the press might oblige. There's no way to predict. A better moratorium might be on any page move without at least 150 !votes before 2017.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• On principle I oppose any moratorium running for longer than a year, because there is no telling what could happen in that time. I would definitely support the same restriction imposed after the previous move discussion, with any new move proposal having a substantial minimum length, to prevent fly-by requests made without a presentation of evidence. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• @BD2412: I oppose your principle on principle. The principle is this: "Form follows function." We are concerned about this because of the campaign. The campaign may end earlier (see 2008), but definitely ends on November 9, 2016, with no doubt possible attached to our arguments thereafter. That is the right time to consider, or re-consider, all of these things.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Moot - As I have noted in the past, this was an issue of interest to a handful of vocal editors who are primarily involved in article move discussions across a variety of topics; RMs are their wiki-raison d'être, and no doubt have Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request (which will, ironically, retain "Rodham" for all-time) out to the printers, being fitted for a frame above the mantelpiece. Those who are here because of their interest in politics and in improving Clinton-centric articles...while I certainly do not profess to literally speak for anyone else, I surmise that there's a the general sentiment of "we'll be glad to see their taillights". Tarc (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support was Comment any reason the Feb 2017 moratorium ( with the length requirements ) would not still be in place? PaleAqua (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  My opinion is that ANY extended discussion of the subject article name during the campaign season makes all wikipedians look like tools, and Wikipedia look (and act) like a political forum. This is one of the reasons I opposed the latest move request. The current moratorium didn't stop MOS activists from changing a pagename which had held steady for over ten years. To me, someone who rarely edits in the field of politics, it looked pointy. Most MOS "crusades" look pointy to me. But I'm over the move; my arguments didn't prevail. In the near future I'd prefer no herky-jerky motion on this pagespace with the whole world watching over our shoulders. BusterD (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  Looks like it had an escape clause which ended it with any successful close. In that case support, though I'd rather have Nov 8, 2016 for any RM without a strong exceptional reason and reinstating the 5000 min til Feb 2017. While I can understand those disliking on moratoriums in principall, I think there are a place for them especially if cases where the issue is relatively minor ( this article is easily found for example regardless of the name ) and the discussions have been disportionate. FWIW I actually slightly prefer HRC as I meantioned in previous discussions, even though I did not take part in the latest one. PaleAqua (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose moratorium. I'm a supporter of the current title (HC), but I oppose moratoriums on principle [1] - they are contrary to the spirit of WP. --В²C ☎ 17:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support as a matter of common sense. There are other things to do people.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose moratorium but support the trouting of anyone who suggests a move in the near future. It is highly unlikely a consensus to move this article again will ever be found, unless she divorces Bill and marries someone else and changes her name again, or if she makes such a big fuss in the near future about wanting to be called Hillary Rodham Clinton that it gets a media firestorm. Moratoriums are not in the spirit of Wikipedia, but anyone proposing a move in the foreseeable future should be stuffed in a bag and thrown in the river. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is highly unlikely a consensus to move this article again will ever be found,..." Exactly what I have been arguing for years. Strong policy arguments to move from HRC to HC; zero policy basis to move from HC back to HRC. That is the point of the yogurt principle and why it applied her. --В²C ☎ 01:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • B2C, if there is never another attempt to move this article, I think the primary reason will be that no one wants to hear you prattle on about yogurt again. Ever. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I can picture in my mind a Morgan Freeman voiceover... "somewhere, right now in the vastness of the Wikipedia, someone is striving for centre as the right choice for an article title, while others yearn for center. Is there a man with the courage to stop this madness?" Tarc (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The grinding has been coming from the +HC camp. If the +HRC camp starts a series of RMs in a grinding war of attrition, then we can consider it. A moratorium would needlessly tie our hands if real world circumstances change significantly or if there is a relevant policy change. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support except for the circumstance in which she suddenly started making predominant use of Hillary Rodham Clinton making a move request any time soon would just be a huge waste of time. All the same arguments would be used and the same result would most likely be achieved. We can't jut have moves back and forth for no reason. If circumstances change then fair enough. Otherwise please no. GregKaye 18:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per bd2412. Jonathunder (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• December 2016 - February 2017 will be a good time to re-examine this page move, when the current campaign is all but forgotten. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Well, no because some not-yet-in-existence article about her might be created at an incorrect title and we don't need a broad rule saying it can't be moved. Certainly, though, this particular article and other major ones shouldn't be moved. --B (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support but think the moratorium should be until January 2017. I opposed this move, but (unlike some people when the result goes against them) I accept the decision by the administrators and move on. However, there could be policy-based reasons to move this article back to Hillary Rodham Clinton in January 2017, if she should be elected President, and if she chooses to take office as "President Hillary Rodham Clinton". I'm saying January 2017 rather than November 2016 because until a president takes office, we do not know what name they will use for their administration, or how they choose to be known to history. --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm confused - why does it matter what name she uses to take the oath of office? Bill Clinton took the oath of office as "William Jefferson Clinton". George W. Bush took it as "George Walker Bush". I would assume that basically everyone takes it with their full name, not their Wikipedia article name. If Hillary is elected, she will most certainly take it as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", since that is her full legal name. If Rand Paul is elected, he will take it as "Randal Howard Paul". If Jeb Bush is elected, he will take it as "John Ellis Bush". --B (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreed. We never go with a name that is merely the "oath of office" name. This can be seen not only from the last seven straight presidential oaths of office, but also from the vice-presidential oaths, and from examples in other countries (see, e.g., introduction of "Margaret Hilda Thatcher" into the House of Lords). bd2412 T 15:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Funny. I don't see the word "oath" anywhere in Melanie's explanation. Dave Dial (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Sigh. No, I am not talking about the words she recites in her oath of office; that's irrelevant. I am talking about the name of her administration - the name the White House uses, during her administration and for posterity. As listed here, where you see "Barack Obama", "George W. Bush", "William Howard Taft" - this is the form of their name that the president is known by, during their time in office and for history. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Umm ... that link lists Bill Clinton as "William J. Clinton". In fact, most 20th century presidents are listed with a middle initial there, but very few of their Wikipedia articles give them that middle initial. I'm not sure that this list is of any importance. The reason for moving the article title was to use her most common name and unless/until that changes, no move discussion should be successful. --B (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Actually the majority of 20th century politicians (13 out of 17) ARE titled at Wikipedia exactly as on this list. The exceptions are Gerald R. Ford (our article omits the R.), Richard M. Nixon (our article omits the M.), James Carter (which NOBODY ever called him - even the White House's own linked biography calls him Jimmy), and William J. Clinton (where again, the White House's linked biography calls him Bill). --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
            • I object to the "unlike some people when the result goes against them" - Note that last year, when the decision went against us (i.e. the supporters of the move), many of us supported a similar 1 year moratorium on moving. And, we actually waited out the year before asking again.

  Please don't tar us all with the same brush Mel. It's not in the spirit of WP:AGF. We're not all sexist, bigoted, whining sore-losers. NickCT (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  I said "some", not "all". You realize I didn't mean you. I'm sure you also realize there were some people who did NOT quietly accept the decision. As for "sexist, bigoted, whining sore-losers" - your words, not mine. I don't talk that way and I don't think that way. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't "some" a weasel word? ;-)

The serious point there is that saying "Some of the people supporting position X were acting poorly" sorta tars everyone supporting position X. You know Mel, some of the folks opposing the move weren't doing so for the most savory reasons. Some of those folks were thinking and talking the way mentioned above.

Regardless, it's going to be interesting to see if this debate does get recycled later. If it does, I hope you're there to debate it with MelanieN. NickCT (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And if this debate does get recycled later, I hope it isn't until after November 2016 - as per this proposal. We all should have better things to do than rehash move debates endlessly. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - We just had a moratorium on this article, and boom, look what happened. In fact I would be interested in participating if there is a new move request even though I support the current name. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support "Moratorium" Look, I'm going back to read the comments here, but without reading them I support this. Let us mess with this article. But let us not make any of these changes we want to make until November 9, 2016 (ahem, November 8 is one day too early). Look, I've got a doosey of a change for WTR, but I'm biting my lip until then. I reject not only bias, but the appearance of bias, because of the current state of political affairs.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Section break

• Support minimum one year moratorium/until the end of active candidacy whichever is the later In general I'm against pre-emptive moratoriums and feel RM restrictions should only be applied when an article has actually been subject to repeated move requests within a few months and usually involving the same users renominating the same options - see Talk:Star Wars (film)#Requested move 17 March 2015 for one I set recently. Given the RMs have come from astonishment the article was not at the most common name it seemed as though the move itself would reduce the prospect of this.
  However the announcement below that a new RM is being prepared just two weeks after a big one closed with actual consensus shows that we're clearly into such territory. This is clearly disruptive and it seems we need restrictions in place. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An enlisting of Hillary?

I will be interested to see how, if at all, the Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton page move may effect the frequency with which readers visit the page.

The HC/HRC page I think has had a real problem as far as Google and possibly other searches are concerned and, in very many versions of Google, the HC/HRC page doesn't get listed at all. In various geographic locations and when making use of various top level domains within which a google.??? search may be conducted, a Hillary Clinton listing may not individually appear at all. In many cases a search on "Clinton" will give Bill Clinton's Wikipedia page as a first item on the search list and present Hillary as a subsidiary link within the BC listing. It appears as:

Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton Wikipedia
William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United ...
‎Hillary Clinton - ‎Chelsea Clinton - ‎Impeachment of Bill Clinton - ‎Roger Clinton, Jr.

I think that the reason for this is that when people searched for "Hillary Clinton", Google did not make a most direct link to a "Hillary Rodham Clinton" article. Normally a Wikipedia article comes at the highest ranking point in any google listing. This has not been the case with HRC and it may be hoped that this may change subsequent to the move to HC.

The thing that I found perplexing was that, even though Hillary is far more prominently featured in the news certainly since she stood for election, Bill's article still gets more visits. Currently at the top 5000 articles by visits as found at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages Bill's article ranks at 700 while Hillary Rodham Clinton article ranks at 1041. I think (hope) that the lowly ratings may have been due to the Hillary Rodham Clinton not being as searchable as it might be.

I don't know exactly how it might happen but my hope is that the recent page move may help Hillary's Wikipedia article to get out of the Google shadow of Bill's Wikipedia article. GregKaye 22:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, interestingly enough, some of this might possibly have to do with WP:RECENTISM actually working in the real world--even though HC is way more prominent in the news, her actual accomplishments are far less than those of her hubby's (until/unless she becomes president, of course). So maybe that has something to do with it. But I think the more likely example is a commercial one. Look at Google search results for, say, Santa Monica beach and Wikipedia doesn't appear anywhere near the top, since there are different organizations fighting tooth and nail against us and against each other to boost the ranking of their website. Put in Fresno and we're second, because there's less competition to beef up rankings for that city. (Interestingly, though, a search for Hillary Clinton puts her second for me behind the campaign website and news results, and the old HRC search put her first, with no news results. ... which is probably why we moved the article.) Red Slash 22:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

People searching for "Clinton" should get Bill before Hillary. He was a two-term President of the United States, and in the calculus of these things, being POTUS outweighs almost anything else. Just like people searching for "Bush" should get either GWB or GHWB before they get Jeb. Anyway, I suspect most people searching for this subject will type in "Hillary" in which case they will get her, regardless of the article title. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Since Google indexes by web page content, the title has very little to do with Google finding it. If we named this article GavertiyGlub it would not affect where Google lists it in the results for "Hillary Clinton" searches. I just searched for Hillary Clinton and our article was listed second (not counting the paid link at the top to her campaign page, and the news section), however it still linked to the HRC url. It will be interesting to see when that will change to the HC url. Shouldn't take too long. --В²C ☎ 01:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting point about the page view stats. Perhaps we'll have something to comment on about this at some point at the WP:TOP25. While the most popular articles any week will include recent top news/culture events, there are always articles like United States and World War II and India in the weekly top 50. Recent U.S. presidents have a steady level of popularity, e.g., Ronald Reagan was 494 in the most recent top 5000 report and 452 the prior week, so that's probably its steady level of popularity range. The Hillary name change may be less easy to discern a difference on, compared to something more dramatic like Caitlyn Jenner.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Google trends presents some, I think, interesting comparisons between the Clintons with "Hillary Clinton" being used in ~50% more searches (on a ratio of 9:6) than "Bill Clinton" in the last year. GregKaye 06:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The trend graph shows that interest in the Clintons and most prominently in Hillary was at a recent peak around the week April 12-18 2015. In a Revision as of 09:41, 19 April 2015 of the West.andrew.g page the "Hillary Rodham Clinton" article was ranked at 22 while the "Bill Clinton" article was ranked at 69.

The Hillary Clinton article receives links from 5000(+a little) Wikipedia pages while the "Bill Clinton" article receives links from ~13600 Wikipedia pages.

None the less I think that the Googly Bill issue has a lot to do with current levels of reader access to the Hillary page.

I did a Google trends search on Caitlyn Jenner,Bruce Jenner,Hillary Clinton as the Caitlyn Jenner page has been viewed 739271 times in the last 30 days and is ranked fifth while the current redirect page Bruce Jenner has been viewed 1108421 times in the last 30 days and is ranked third. The Caitlyn Jenner page in comparison only receives ~800 links from other Wikipedia pages and yet is seemingly one of Wikipedia's most viewed pages.

Bill Clinton has been viewed 215579 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 701 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org. (time frame for second sentence not specified).

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been viewed 154972 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 1996 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.

Hillary Clinton has been viewed 17552 times in the last 30 days.

I personally think that Hillary is suffering from the fact that an early decision was taken to back Bill's political career. The effect now is that, even when she personally stands for election, she is still electronically regarded, in some ways, as and accessory of Bill's. Hillary currently has higher profile but, unless a news search is undertaken, you would never guess it. Now there is a case of systemic bias for you.

GregKaye 07:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a systemic bias. Outside the U.S., Hillary is still a non-entity/non-event, whereas Bill has been globally active and globally in the news -- unceasing in his good works, foundations, and support of other foundations -- and has been a household word around the world, since 1992. Hillary hasn't, and that was shown repeatedly by non-American participants in the move request. It also has nothing to do with supporting Bill's presidency -- that doesn't and didn't register outside the U.S. All of that said, hopefully the article-name change will help, but really American elections are not the global be-all and end-all that Americans think they are, unless there is the possibility of a radical change as there was from G. W. Bush to possibly a black Democrat. Lastly, one problem that Google seems to have is that Wikipedia articles seem to come up higher if the exact parameter (in this case, "hillary clinton") occurs in the first sentence of the article, which it still doesn't in this article. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And Bill is, I think, internationally renowned for having being a relatively great president. In the current situation this is in some ways an unfortunate situation for Hillary as, despite being sought for, her reference in Wikipedia is not separately listed. I will certainly find it of interest to see when if at all Hillary becomes separately listed. I think that this eventuality may face a challenge related to a potential closed loop. Google listings do not give Hillary's article prominence even, I believe, in U.S. .com searches (coming second to news). As a result of this and being placed as a sub link to Bill in other parts of the world, this may mean that Hillary's article gets less traffic than it might. Getting less traffic would mean that Hillary's article is less likely to be given prominent presentation in Google listings and the circle continues. Given what I take to be an unfortunate situation I think that it might be fair to give Hillary's article something like featured article status on the main page. GregKaye 11:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles often come first in Google rankings, but I don't think it's a goal of the project to try and improve the rankings of pages that don't. bd2412 T 11:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence currently reads:

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (/ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/ ; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and former United States Secretary of State in the administration of President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013; a former United States Senator representing New York from 2001 to 2009; and, as the wife of President Bill Clinton, was First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001.

I propose to drop the /ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/ as I don't particularly see a difficulty in pronunciation and perhaps that we could present:

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née Rodham; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and former United States Secretary of State in the administration of President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013; a former United States Senator representing New York from 2001 to 2009; and, as the wife of President Bill Clinton, was First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001.

I think that some clarification between middle name and birth family name may be instructive. We are also presenting the name "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" which has been used elsewhere but which may be an unsubstantiated amalgamation between "Hillary Diane Rodham" (birth name) and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (name used in role as author and as secretary of state and in signatures).

GregKaye 15:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Support dropping the thing following her name (comes near to incompreheensible and clutters up the lead). How about dropping the 'Diane' (not every page uses a middle name, or do they, is that some kind of policy too?) and leaving the first mention as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'. These changes would look clean, share another form of her name which itself is nearly a common name, and fix some of the current controversy. Randy Kryn 17:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

All BLPs do that, even those where the article title is a nickname, e.g. Slash (musician) is introduced as Saul Hudson. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Political positions

The "political positions" section is a very high level summary of Political positions of Hillary Clinton. That approach seems okay to me, but the section has recently been tagged in an effort to obtain a more comprehensive summary. I think the current summary is compliant with policy, but perhaps it would help to replace the hatnote (which is a link to main) with a Seealso.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The value of "Political positions of X" articles is that they can explain positions and policy proposals in some depth and capture details and nuance and deal with complexity and evolution over time. Attempting to summarize entries from those in a small space tends to reduce such positions to quasi-meaningless sound bites ("X wants to secure the borders first before discussing immigration reform", "Y believes early education is vital to the nation's future", etc). Therefore to me the summary section in a politician BLP can benefit if it is approached from a different angle. There are a lot of metrics out there for measuring politicians on various absolute or relative ideological scales and that seems like a good way of handling the summary. There is nothing that says that a summary section has to mimic the same approach that a detail article takes. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence currently reads:

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née: Hillary Diane Rodham; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician.

Options potentially may include something along the lines of:

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née: Rodham; born October 26, 1947, also known as Hillary Rodham Clinton) is an American politician.

Please note that there is no source to indicate that, while Name change#United States may be by usage, there has ever been a legally filed change from "Hillary Diane Rodham".

GregKaye 06:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As reminded above, note 1 is dedicated to name usage and a ^{[nb 1]} link could potentially also be added to any of the name references above. I find it quite strange that there's been notable and continued name warring both on this and the article page yet, when suggestion is made regarding the fine details on how to present this much argued over information, no one comments. GregKaye 13:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Surname

"Rodham" isn't a middle name, it's part of her surname. I propose we replace instances of "Clinton did x and y" with "Rodham Clinton did x and y". It would look like this diff. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not part of her surname either. Neither she nor anyone else uses it like that. It's "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on first reference, "Clinton" (or "Secretary Clinton" or "Senator Clinton" or "Mrs. Clinton") on subsequent references. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wrong. "Rodham" is her maiden name, not part of her surname. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Rodham was her surname. It was for a long time. Then at some point she adopted her husbands surname. A person can have different surnames at different times, and even at the same time, but there is no evidence that she ever used Rodham as a surname after adopting her husband's surname. The article covers the transition in a note. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"ever used Rodham as a surname after adopting her husband's surname." You mean Rodham alone? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are some married women who do consider their married surname is "<maiden surname> <husband's surname>". If Mrs Clinton had done this, she would have made it very clear that she wants to be known as Mrs "Rodham Clinton", not just Mrs "Clinton". But she has never made any such statement. Effectively, "Rodham" has morphed into a middle name. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, she did say that actually in 1993. It's in the article. But I don't think this proposal is going anywhere. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I would dearly like to move on from anything remotely having to do with the subject's name. Tarc (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, man. Put your back into it. Don't desert me now. I can taste victory. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Google News hits for

• "Secretary Clinton": About 9,590 results
• "Secretary Rodham Clinton": 1 result
• "Senator Clinton": About 1,790 results
• "Senator Rodham Clinton": No results found for "Senator Rodham Clinton"

Cheers! bd2412 T 14:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your reputation for party-pooping is deserved, then. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Anthony, I saw that you tried to insert "Rodham Clinton" into the article as if it was her surname. It was immediately, and correctly, reverted. She does not use a compound surname like this and never has. When she was single, and during the early years of her marriage, her surname was "Rodham". She then switched to using "Cliinton" as her surname. She retained her maiden name as a middle name, as many women do, and she likes to use all three names, as some people, men and women, choose to do. But her name is either "Clinton, Hillary" or "Clinton, Hillary Rodham". It is not, and never has been, "Rodham Clinton, Hillary". --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Featured article

Featured articles are supposed, among other things, to be stable. Right now, this one is anything but. I think, with all the disagreement that's going on here, this needs to be kept in mind. We would not want it to be a former featured article. Omnedon (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Preparing a new RM: Move to "Hillary Rodham Clinton"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given the clear evidence supporting the use of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I believe it is time to start preparing a new requested move. I will start compiling data here. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfuckingbelieveable. Hate to say I told you so to everyone, but "You've got that backwards. Within 5 minutes of being renamed, some new editor will come along, feel it's at the wrong title, and we'll be back here again with another 54 pages of "this tiny little difference means I win and you lose!" crap we have now. --Jayron32 02:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)". It was a bit longer than 5 minutes, but not much. --Jayron32 02:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no choice, dear fellow. I did not want to resort to this low behaviour. However, there seems to be no choice in the matter. Certain editors have taken to the war path, ignoring Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and common sense. They attempt to eradicate the word "Rodham", as if said word were vulgar. The vast preponderance of evidence supports "Hillary Rodham Clinton", and always has done. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it seems that the closers of the discussion could not see beyond the masses of "votes" without adequate rationales based in policy and guidelines. This was a great damage to the encylopaedia, and must be remedied. RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Jayron, please remain civil. Omnedon (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think that if the determination of the closers is in question, the proper course of action would be to file a move review, not to initiate a new process that assumes that the previous close was correct. In any case, please make sure to inform all past participants of any new discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, there is a choice. You can accept the consensus that was reached after a really long and in depth discussion decided upon by three uninvolved admins. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I smell WP:Point. This seems to be a response to the infobox war, to make the point that escalation will be the price for that war. I am not the least bit involved with the intobox war, but I don't think a requested move is an appropriate response. If it isn't put on ice, then I will propose moving the name of the encyclopedia from "Wikipedia" to "Warpedia". Take that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You fellows never "accepted" consensus after numerous previous RMs, so you can hardly expect others to do so. RGloucester — ☎ 04:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus to accept. Time after time the result of each effort was No consensus to move. That is not the same as consensus to not move. But the last RM resulted in a consensus to move. And thanks for confirming the WP:POINTiness of your post. You should recognize that consensus always favored HC as the title; the admins just did not recognize this (one non-admin closer did, but he was reversed in an RM review, by an admin). All the arguments about attempts to change the title from HRC to HC as being trivial and disruptive did not actually apply then (because consensus favored the move to HC), but ironically do apply now (because consensus favors leaving this article at HC). That's the point of the User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle, by the way. --В²C ☎ 16:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I argued for the name Hillary Rodham Clinton, and I would/will again. But enough is enough. We should have no more discussions on this topic until January 2017, at which point there should definitely be a reconsideration, especially if she becomes President. In the meantime, please don't stoop to the level of the people who refused to accept the previous result and spent a month plotting how to challenge that three-admin-panel unanimous decision - and who have been gloating all over Wikipedia because they finally got their way, at least temporarily. This was also a three-closer panel, the panel made their decision; take the high road and accept it for now. --MelanieN (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Tedious WP:POINT. And "the closers of the discussion could not see beyond the masses of "votes" without adequate rationales based in policy and guidelines." = move review not a not a new RM. DeCausa (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose a new RM, as we should wait atleast a year. At some point, one has to accept that things didn't go their way & gracefully move on. GoodDay (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I see only two possibilities that would warrant taking the community through a new WP:RM: [1] an IRL change, and/or [2] a change to WP policy (of course: in both cases a significant change that would be relevant in favour of a name change). Rehashing available existing evidence (whether proponents of the inclusion of the maiden name chose to use it at the last WP:RM or not) is not a sufficient reason for a new RM, and it is way too early for a WP:CCC.

Here's a suggestion: work towards stability of the article content first (through reasonable discussion), so that the article doesn't need to be protected every few days or weeks: that at least sets the climate that imho is indispensable for a new RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - consensus has already been decided on this one. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but not one has any right to "oppose" the opening of an RM. There is no moratorium, and as such, an RM can and will be opened. The only correct title is "Hillary Rodham Clinton", and that will be the title of this article. RGloucester — ☎ 15:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• FYI, I've brought this to ANI. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#battleground behavior and general uncivility by RGloucester if you have any feelings on the matter. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Consensus was to have it renamed moved and Mr Gloucester will have to accept that like it or not. –Davey2010^Talk 17:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus was to have it "NOT RENAMED" in years previous. Did that stop anyone from filing this RM? I'm very confused as to why that behaviour was tolerated by you, Mr Davey? I would respect a moratorium if there was one, but there isn't. It was proposed above and largely rejected. If you care to enact such a moratorium, I suggest you comment in the associated thread above. Furthermore, you may refer to me only as "Your Grace", "His Grace", or as the "Duke of Gloucester". I'm no mere common "mister". RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My bad that should've said "Moved" but however we want to word it consensus was to have it moved and you know it, Your Grace hahaha oh dear lord! –Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• DO NOT WANT - Just stop, please. Tarc (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Given the distaste for the idea of a new requested move expressed even by those who favour that title, I will withdraw the declaration of preparations for a proposal. I intend to return in six months time. I am much obliged to all those who have responded. RGloucester — ☎ 18:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Waiting six months seems like a better idea than doing it two weeks after closure. We'll see how the consensus holds up then. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that's the right thing to do. This has been a frustrating situation, and I can see where you're coming from. And I must note, especially to the various people who say that there was consensus to move, that there was no such consensus. The panel decided to move, but consensus clearly did not exist. But the article is where it is, and people can find it. Both HC and HRC are often used. The bigger problem, in my mind, is the complete mess that was this most recent RM. Omnedon (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Recommend you wait atleast a full year :) GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally, RGloucester, I have no issue with you proposing it any time you want (I'm against moratoriums on principle - see my FAQ), if you have strong policy-based reasons for the move. Merely presenting "clear evidence supporting the use of [HRC]" won't cut it, by the way. There has never been an issue about that. What is needed to support a move based on WP:COMMONNAME is evidence that the proposed title is used more commonly than the current title, like what was presented time after time in the numerous proposals to move HRC to HC. It's always a subjective call, but HC always had CONCISE to tip the scales in its favor. HRC has nothing like that. But I could be wrong. If you or anyone else does manage to present a strong policy-based case for moving from HC to HRC, I, for one, would love to see it. However, community consensus is not with me on this, and seems to frown on new RMs soon after another one, especially if consensus was found in the previous one (note: in each of the HRC->HC cases, but the last one, the result was "no consensus", suggesting more discussion was needed to develop consensus; that is not the case now that consensus, for HC, has been found). --В²C ☎ 20:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Appologies to SNUGGUMS for adding comment following your close. I wanted to respond to RGloucester's, I think, argumentative and WP:WEASEL comment "Certain editors ... attempt to eradicate the word "Rodham", as if said word were vulgar." This is in the context in which I have proposed adding reference in Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Opening sentence. Please let's add relevant content in places in which the content is coherently explained. Please. GregKaye 12:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request -- link to reset article

Requesting that the word "presented" in the sentence whose start is shown below be made into a WikiLink to the Russian reset article, like this:
The same month, Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister . . . MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@MissPiggysBoyfriend: Not done: That goes against WP:EGG. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64:Interesting, that's a principle I hadn't seen before. But it does make sense. One option would be to do it like this:
The same month, Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov . . .

I don't know how good/bad it is to have two links right against each other like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 June 2015

That would be WP:SEAOFBLUE. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: -- OK, it seems linking requires a change to the Hillary Clinton article, beyond merely adding the link. How about this, slightly further down:

. . . remembered for a mistranslation into Russian. The policy, which became known as the Russian reset, led to improved cooperation in several areas during Medvedev's time in office, but . . . MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, looks good to me, so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of the {{discretionary sanctions}} template

Some discretionary sanctions about topics related to American politics were recently imposed on Wikipedia. {{discretionary sanctions|topic=ap|style=long}} is included in this article, but it is absent from all other articles about American politics. Should this bias be corrected? Jarble (talk)

@Jarble: The discretionary sanctions apply to all american politics articles, even if there template is absent. I added it here because there was an ongoing dispute. Typically it seems the templates are on pages where there has been or could be a dispute. I'd expect to see it on Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and maybe John Roberts because of their current prominence in the news. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

New header image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I would like to suggest changing header image. This one is from 2009 and is outdated, now she has brighter hair. It will be better to change it in my opinion. I think these images are far better.

• 
  Hillary A
• Hillary B
  Hillary B

Thanks — Itsyoungrapper (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The was discussed just last month at Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 27#Portrait, the result of which as no consensus to change. We're not going to rehash all of that again so soon. Tarc (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

can we leave this to rest for awhile? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This discussion should be speedily closed as already raised and resolved, particularly since "Hillary A" was already proposed in the last discussion. Maybe in another year, more new images will be available as recent options. All of this will become moot, however, if the subject is elected President and has an official presidential photograph taken. bd2412 T 01:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding controversial if not calm template on talk page

Should we add either of these templates since with the email scandals and perhaps some of our conservative editors will not take it easy on this talk page. Perhaps a bit of a warning. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request.

Remove the second part of the sentence about Clinton's 2016 candidacy from the first paragraph of her page. This has been removed from other candidacy pages, and Clinton is not a special snowflake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@74.107.74.186: This is done. Mention of 2008 & '16 removed, and lead paragraph reworked for neutrality. I'll tackle the rest soon.   Spartan7W §   13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"... has come under heavy criticism for the activities of the Clinton Foundation ..."

Shouldn't be in intro if this is extrapolating content not actually in the article. I'd avoid qualifiers like "heavy" in the intro too, unless there is quasi unanimity in reliable sources this is the right qualifier (and supported with refs in the body of the article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Can the following sentence be added to the description of Clinton's role in the 2011 military intervention in Libya in her bio?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposed sentence:

"It has been suggested that the power vacuum in Libya created by the demise of the Gaddafi regime contributed to its slide into the 'chaos of failed statehood' in which it became a refuge for extremists and terrorist groups, such as ISIS, and spurred a refugee crisis as immigrants crossed the Mediterranean to southern Europe.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/hillary-clinton-libya-election-2016/index.html |title=Hillary Clinton's real Libya problem |author=Collinson, Stephen |work=[[CNN]] |date=June 15, 2015}}</ref>"

To be appended to the following from the article:

"As the Libyan Civil War took place, Clinton's shift in favor of military intervention aligned her with Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and National Security Council figure Samantha Power and was a key turning point in overcoming internal administration opposition from Defense Secretary Gates, security advisor Thomas Donilon, and counterterrorism advisor John Brennan in gaining the backing for, and Arab and U.N. approval of, the 2011 military intervention in Libya.[330][331][332] She later used U.S. allies and what she called "convening power" to help keep the Libyan rebels unified as they eventually overthrew the Gaddafi regime.[332]"

00:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFredkin (talk • contribs)

parenthetical discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Signing your RFC may not, as you say, be "required" per WP:RFC, CFredkin (although I haven't found the rationale for that point in the RFC archives, and would like to know what they had in mind), but it is surely at least a little misleading, if perhaps not intentionally so, to post an RFC that is headed with the vague "An editor has requested comments", and then respond to your own RFC with an emphatic support of your own position. I added the "unsigned" template for some transparency here, and wonder why you chose to not only follow that odd non-requirement, support yourself, but then remove your name from the RFC when the signature was added. Given the nature of the edits you are suggesting on this BLP, I find this at least a little ironic. But maybe you have a reason, which I'd be interested in hearing. Tvoz/talk 04:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Not prominently tagging it with a signature helps minimize that as a source of bias in the responses.CFredkin (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC) I don't think it would come as a surprise to anyone that I would support my own RfC, and my own opinion on the matter and the rationale for it is as valid as anyone else's.CFredkin (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Fair enough, but by immediately supporting the "anonymous" question (which of course is trivially easy to identify by looking at history) without acknowledging that you're the OP, an erroneous impression is given. This isn't a big deal, and I don't want to belabor it, but my point above stands. By the way, I didn't, and wouldn't have raised any question about the lack of signature after I added it in a neutral manner , had you not then removed it. And finally - my opposition to this edit has nothing to do with who proposed it. Tvoz/talk 05:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC) You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, according to WP:RFC, if you have an objection to how an RfC is worded or structured, you should ask the author to change it, instead of editing it yourself.CFredkin (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Because you chose to edit the RfC without expressing your concern beforehand, I reverted it. And the fact that you chose to raise your concern here at the top of the RfC, also gives an impression.CFredkin (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC) It is not so evident to formulate RfC's "neutrally", in this instance: (1) "suggesting" an edit is not the same as being neutral about that edit; (2) at least any prior discussions about the same should be linked from the opening statement, i.e. in this case the Talk:Hillary Clinton#Reverted edits section above (follows from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration, first bullet). Since the opening statement and the first !vote got separated by this little procedural discussion, the sig after the opening statement became indispensable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Yes The sentence is very well sourced and the source draws a direct link between Clinton's role as a driver of the military intervention in Libya and the state of the country today. Hillary and her supporters have touted her role re Libya as a key accomplishment during her time as Sec of State. It's misleading not to include the whole story there.CFredkin (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• No that is an opinion stated as a fact. And we should never start a sentence with a "it has been suggested" as it is poor writing and it does not say who made that suggestion, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• No as Cwobeel says, that is an opinion, albeit sourced, and it is inappropriate to include someone's speculation about what may have been the cause of the state of the country after her tenure. This is her biography, so what is relevant is what she did, not what someone thinks might have been the result later on. And that " Hillary and her supporters have touted her role re Libya as a key accomplishment during her time as Sec of State." has nothing to do with how we write her biography. Tvoz/talk 02:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Not yet. Cwobeel is correct that we should never start a sentence with a "it has been suggested". But that could be easily fixed if it is changed to "According to CNN". The source seems to be a news report rather than an opinion piece, which is good (it says at the end "CNN's Barbara Starr contributed to this report"). My main concern is that we need to be summarizing the sub-article, per WP:Summary style. The pertinent sub-article is Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. So, the best thing would be to make sure that sub-article is correct and complete, and then include an improved summary here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• No, as it is innuendo phrased as fact. Tarc (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Add a little, but not all of this. It's fair enough to briefly state in this article that while the coalition military invention in the Libyan Civil War was successful in getting rid of Qaddafi, it has not been successful in producing a stable or pro-Western regime afterward, and underneath this to add a link to the Aftermath of the 2011 Libyan Civil War article. It's an oversight on my part that such text and link has not been in here already. However, I would not add all that is being proposed in this RfC. Everyone will agree that the current state of Libya is unsatisfactory from the U.S. point of view, but not everyone will agree that the intervention caused this or that the intervention was a bad idea given what was known at the time. And remember that in this part of the world, everything tends to go to hell on its own. Look at the Syrian Civil War, where without U.S. military intervention against Assad there has also been an even worse failed state, even worse ISIL breeding ground, even worse generator of refugees. I've seen a half-dozen differing assessments of wisdom of the Libyan intervention and to pick just one CNN piece to characterize this is to way oversimplify it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• No, how is it related to Clinton? It's suggesting it was the fault of the Qaddafi regime - put it in his article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yes This is directly related to her tenure. They heavily pushed the removal of Qaddafi from power while she was at State. Now Libya is unstable, and this can be sourced.   Spartan7W §   13:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• No. The citation is more about how Libya's current state could affect Clinton's campaign. Written the way it is now, and especially appended onto that paragraph, implies that Clinton is to blame for the state of Libya, not that the state of Libya could cause problems in her campaign. If anything, info on Libya after Gaddafi's ouster belongs in Death of Muammar Gaddafi. Fuzchia (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yes Supported by a logical reading of RS (conditioned on the existence of a qualifying prefix, however - others have objected to "it has been suggested" ... I don't object to that, but am also content with an alternate qualifier like "According to CNN ..." or whatever). LavaBaron (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

It looks like the above RfC proposal isn't going to fly, but I still think something should be briefly mentioned about this.

I've recently added the following on the subject to the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article:

Over the next few years, the aftermath of the Libyan Civil War became characterized by instability, two rival governments, and a slide into status as a failed state; it became a refuge for extremists and terrorist groups, such as ISIL, and spurred a massive refugee crisis as immigrants crossed the Mediterranean to southern Europe. The wisdom of the intervention would continue to be debated, with President Obama maintaining that the intervention had been worthwhile but that the United States and Europe underestimated the ongoing effort needed to rebuild Libyan society afterward; former U.S. Representative to NATO Ivo Daalder stating that the limited goals of the intervention had all been met but that the Libyan people had not seized their opportunity to form a better future and that post-intervention military involvement by the West would have been counterproductive; and scholar Alan J. Kuperman (along with some other scholars and human rights groups) writing that the intervention had been based on the faulty notion that Libya had been headed towards humanitarian disaster when in fact it was not and was thus the intervention was "an abject failure, judged even by its own standards". Kuperman's view that Gaddafi son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi held promise as a Western-style political reformer was in turn disputed by former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Derek Chollet, who stated that such faith was misplaced and that Libyans were resistant to any post-intervention security mechanism and to many rebuilding programs. Clinton said in her 2014 memoir that she had been "worried that the challenges ahead would prove overwhelming for even the most well-meaning transitional leaders. If the new government could consolidate its authority, provide security, use oil revenues to rebuild, disarm the militias, and keep extremists out, then Libya would have a fighting chance at building a stable democracy. If not, then the country would face very difficult challenges translating the hopes of a revolution into a free, secure, and prosperous future."

That's obviously way too much for a main BLP article, but it does illustrate that there are a lot of different perspectives on the intervention. In this article, I propose to add just this:

The aftermath of the Libyan Civil War saw the country becoming a failed state, and the wisdom of the intervention and interpretation of what happened afterward would become the subject of considerable debate.

Is this something everyone could be agreeable to? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a good summary as far as it goes, so I would support it. My question is about completeness of the sub-article. The "regime change" was done without seeking congressional authorization, as I recall, and I would be curious to know HRC's position on that. Moreover, Gaddafi had surrendered his nuclear weapons program, and I seem to recollect that his subsequent toppling was criticized as incentivizing other nations to acquire and never surrender such programs. I could be mistaken about these recollections, and could try to google these matters, but maybe you can refresh these recollections.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The US domestic reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya article gets into the Congressional aspect somewhat. But I think that was considered 'domestic politics', and in a quick look on the web I can't find Hillary commenting on the question. Not that there's anything unique about this - the entire campaign against ISIL has also occurred without congressional authorization. Given how dysfunctional Congress has been, statespeople aren't going to sit around and wait for it to do something. Yes, the argument you mention re Qaddafi was made. A variant could also be made about the Iraq War – Saddam gave up his program but still got toppled – or even about Iran – they negotiate a deal with one president but if the other party wins the election they've promised to tear the deal into small pieces on Inauguration Day. A lot of disincentivizing going on. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's fine with me if you insert your proposed language here. We can hash out the rest at the respective sub-articles, and possibly add more here later. I know executive branch officials don't like to wait for Congress to make laws, but they often feel obliged to do so (both Iraq wars plus the Afghanistan war were authorized by Congress). As for Sadaam, he refused to allow inspectors into his many palaces to confirm the absence of nuclear material, so that his enemies like Iran would fear he was stronger than he actually was; Gadaffi was very different in that no one ever doubted that he fully and unambiguously surrendered his nuclear program. But we can take up this stuff at the sub-articles where we can discuss reliable sources that deal with these subjects.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I think Sec. Kerry has stated that the pending Iran deal is deliberately written in a way that does not bind the United States to any long-term commitment. If it had been written as a long-term commitment, then it would be a "treaty" requiring 2/3 approval from the Senate. This statement by Kerry seems similar to saying that the next administration can tear up the deal. Trump has already said he would honor the deal but find ways to enforce it very strictly. Sone other candidates have said they'd tear it up. HRC has said she wouldn't tear it up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox heading

There was recently a long discussion (from June to August) now at: Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 26#Infobox heading survey

The close of this discussion was presented as follows:

No consensus. I'm closing this per a request at WP:AN. There are about 20 people supporting "HC" and about 15 supporting "HRC". Arguments for both versions are defensible in the light of applicable policy, so it's not for me to say who has the stronger arguments. That means we have a majority for "HC", but not consensus, but even less of a consensus to change the current (as of this writing) status of "HC".  Sandstein  06:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Within the context of the statement "..even less of a consensus to change the current (as of this writing) status of "HC"." The infobox title was changed in just a few hours of the close here by BD2412 on the justification, "The discussion on the name to appear in the infobox has been closed as "No consensus"; per WP:NO CONSENSUS, this requires reversion to the status quo ante."

I am not convinced that this was the intention of the close or that a revert was appropriate in the context that, with the article title changing, the goal posts had effectively shifted.

GregKaye 11:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Already discussed, see Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 27#Infobox title (which includes a link to an ANI clarificaation by Sandstein). Propose snow close: WP:CCC unlikely for something that was agreed upon three weeks ago. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits

The following edits were reverted in their entirety. They are all well-sourced. More sources can be provided. What specifically is the issue with each?

1. Following the demise of the Gaddafi regime, Libya subsided into the "chaos of failed statehood" becoming a refuge for extremists and terrorist groups, such as ISIS, and spurring a massive refugee crisis as immigrants crossed the Mediterranean to southern Europe.
2. Prior to assuming the role of Secretary of State, Clinton signed an agreement with the administration which precluded the foundation from accepting new donations from foreign goverments during her tenure in order to mitigate the potential for inappropriate influence of the State Department. In February 2015, the Washington Post reported that the foundation had accepted $500,000 from Algeria in 2010, in apparent violation of her agreement with the administration. The foundation indicated that the donation was to contribute to relief efforts in Haiti. The Post noted that the donation "coincided with a spike" in lobbying efforts by Algeria of the State Department regarding their human rights record.
3. From 2009 to 2013, the Russian atomic energy agency (Rosatom) acquired Uranium One, a Canadian company with global uranium mining stakes including 20% of the uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset with national security implications, the acquisition required approval by the State Department, which was then headed by Clinton. In April 2015, the New York Times reported that, during the acquisition, the family foundation of Uranium One's chairman made $2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. The donations were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite a prior agreement to do so. In addition, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and which was promoting Uranium One stock paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow shortly after the acquisition was announced.
4. Clinton subsequently resigned from the foundation's board in April 2015 when she began her presidential campaign; the foundation said it would accept new foreign governmental donations from six western nations only.
5. The foundation has stated that 88% of the contributions it receives goes to charity work. Other sources have reported that roughly 10% of contributions to the foundation goes to charitable activity. The foundation raised over $140 million in 2013, while spending $85 million of which $9 million was allocated to grants to other organizations.CFredkin (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

References

It appears that all of these edits were to the section titled "Clinton Foundation, e-mails issue, and other activities" except for the first set of edits about Libya (which were in the subsection titled "Events of 2011–13 and overall themes"). I think it would be useful to first consider the Libya stuff, and then the rest.

The Libya edits merely inserted this:

"Following the demise of the Gaddafi regime, Libya subsided into the 'chaos of failed statehood' becoming a refuge for extremists and terrorist groups, such as ISIS, and spurring a massive refugee crisis as immigrants crossed the Mediterranean to southern Europe.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/hillary-clinton-libya-election-2016/index.html |title=Hillary Clinton's real Libya problem |author=Collinson, Stephen |work=[[CNN]] |date=June 15, 2015}}</ref>"

I support insertion of this brief statement; it makes no sense to say she succeeded in overthrowing Khadafy and then omit what then happened to the country. The Benghazi attack is mentioned later on, but without any context about the country's fate after Khadafy died.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

References

• That's the section I have the most problem with. The action was one that Clinton supported, the addition is what has happened afterwards in some sections of the Country. One is a decision Clinton and senior advisers helped craft, the other is a political attack generated by Rand Paul and doesn't have any direct bearing on HRC or her BLP. Perhaps it can be included(in a much more neutral manner) in the campaign article. It should not be included here, especially worded in the manner that makes innuendos that HRC somehow has responsibility for what has transpired in Libya after the good Colonels demise. Dave Dial (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The reference to Rand Paul in the source is made in passing and is not the basis for the article. The source draws a direct link between Clinton's role as a driver of the military intervention in Libya and the state of the country today.CFredkin (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Hillary and her supporters have touted her role re Libya as a key accomplishment during her time as Sec of State. It's misleading not to include the whole story there.CFredkin (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Amazing how it is always that when it is someone not aligned to you politics, adding material that may be deemed as negative is always supported by you. Amazing. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is not amazing, it is outrageous. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Pots and kettles. Let's just try to follow reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

User:DD2K, Do you have anything to say in response to my previous post?CFredkin (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The problem with that entry is the same, whether the Rand Paul attack is minimal or not. It doesn't belong in her bio. The Arab Spring was/is a moving movement, so who knows where it ends up. It could be like Reagan and Bush supplying the 'Freedom Fighters' in Afghanistan that turned into the Taliban/Al Queada, or it could have been like the CIA/American support for the Shah of Iran. Historical context will be made, it's still moving and there is no need to add this here. Perhaps in another article, in a neutral manner. Dave Dial (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

So let's follow the Ronald Reagan article which says, "President Reagan's Covert Action program has been given credit for assisting in ending the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, though some of the United States funded armaments introduced then would later pose a threat to U.S. troops in the 2000s (decade) war in Afghanistan." We might also want to mention that HRC spearheaded not just decapitating the Libya regime, but doing so without any congressional authorization; Khadafy's prior surrender of his nuclear weapons program has led many analysts to conclude that killing him disincentivized such nuclear cooperation by other regimes. All of this could not possibly be more relevant biographically to Mrs. Clinton, just as arming the mujahadeen is to Mr. Reagan.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Is there some alternative wording that either of you would like to propose?CFredkin (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC) I'd also be interested to know if anyone else supports DD2K's stance that this content should not appear in the article in any form....CFredkin (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of other suggestions, I'll propose a modified version of the sentence which attempts to soften its tone in the vein of the Reagan example provided above:

"It has been suggested that the power vacuum in Libya created by the demise of the Gaddafi regime contributed to its slide into the 'chaos of failed statehood' in which it became a refuge for extremists and terrorist groups, such as ISIS, and spurred a refugee crisis as immigrants crossed the Mediterranean to southern Europe."CFredkin (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

References

• I support Dave Dial's comments entirely - this material does not belong in her biography. Perhaps in the article specifically about her tenure at State, although I'd have to look at that more closely before endorsing that, and Rand Paul's attack perhaps in the presidential campaign article - again, I'd want to look at that more closely before endorsing it - but certainly not in the BLP of her whole life. And I think that doing this in just over 24 hours from the first comment here is not giving folks enough time to even see it and respond. (As for what's in the Reagan article, so what? I might think it doesn't belong there either - I haven't looked.) Tvoz/talk 23:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

OK, so what's the objection to the following edit?

From 2009 to 2013, the Russian atomic energy agency (Rosatom) acquired Uranium One, a Canadian company with global uranium mining stakes including 20% of the uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset with national security implications, the acquisition required approval by the State Department, which was then headed by Clinton. In April 2015, the New York Times reported that, during the acquisition, the family foundation of Uranium One's chairman made $2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. The donations were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite a prior agreement to do so. In addition, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and which was promoting Uranium One stock paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow shortly after the acquisition was announced.

CFredkin (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

References

• This is not appropriate for her biography - any mention of it would belong, and is found, in the Clinton Foundation article. Further, the last time I checked, Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton were two different people. This is her biography. Tvoz/talk 02:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• And by the way, the wording proposed is way too close to the NYT article - flirting with copyvio.Tvoz/talk 03:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I believe it probably belongs in a section of her bio related to her stint as Secretary of State. The source repeatedly mentions her involvement with this situation in that context.CFredkin (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Have been away for awhile, now catching up. Will discuss edit issue #1, the Libya aftermath question, in the section below.

Regarding edit issue #2, this is pretty much already in the article – see sentence "The foundation began accepting new donations from foreign governments, which it had stopped doing while she was secretary.[nb 15]" and the text in Note 15. The only part that isn't is about WaPo's statement about a spike in Algeria lobbying, but there's no evidence in that story about Algeria getting anything in return, so this aspect isn't worth mentioning here.

Regarding edit issue #3, this belongs in the Clinton Foundation article, where it already is in both the "History" and "Transparency" sections. Regarding Hillary's role in this, the NYT story in question says "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown" and quotes the Hillary campaign as pushing back strongly on it, saying "multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary." Given that, it doesn't belong in this article.

Regarding edit issue #4, this is already in the article; see "Clinton subsequently resigned from the foundation's board in April 2015 ..." and again the text in Note 15.

Regarding edit issue #5, the financial/charitable structure of the Clinton Foundation is somewhat unconventional and complicated and needs to be explained in that article, not here. Hillary was only part of the Foundation for two years (early 2013 – early 2015) and has had very little to do with how the Foundation operates. Whatever you think of the Clinton Foundation, good or bad or somewhere in between, its history and actions have been far more reflective of Bill than Hillary, and as Tvoz correctly points out above, they are two separate people. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

To follow up on #2, the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article now contains a mention of the spike in Algeria lobbying, but also includes a description of the negative reports on Algeria's human rights record that the State Department issued for the next two years afterward, thus indicating that Algeria got nothing in return. Thus I continue to believe that there's no need to mention the spike in this main BLP article.

And to follow up on #3, the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article now contains a paragraph on the Uranium One business, giving various perspectives on it. However, given that the bottom line is, as emphasized by this FactCheck.org piece, that there is no evidence that the Clinton Foundation donations influenced Hillary's official actions, and that multiple other U.S. governmental agencies approved the same deal, I continue to believe that this matter is not significant enough to warrant inclusion in this main BLP article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

After further consideration, I agree with the points above regarding #1, #4, and #5. However #2 & #3 above and their relationship to Hillary's tenure as Sec of State have been discussed extensively in the media...

Partial list of sources for donation by Algeria:

1. Foreign governments gave millions to Foundation while Clinton was at State Dept, Washington Post
2. What the Clinton Foundation is costing Hillary, New York Times
3. The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for, Salon
4. Clinton Foundation: 2010 donation broke Obama administration agreement, CNN
5. Hillay Clinton's 'obsession' with money could be an obstacle for her 2016 campaign, Business Insider
6. Will the Clinton Foundation come to haunt Hillary?, Bloomberg
7. Donations leave Hillary in a Cloud, RealClearPolitics

Partial list of sources for donations re Uranium One:

1. Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation amid Russian uranium deal, New York Times
2. The Clinton Foundation received millions from investors as Putin took over 20% of US uranium deposits, Business Insider
3. Gifts to Hillary Clinton’s Family Charity Are Scrutinized in Wake of Book, Wall Street Journal
4. 'Clinton Cash' author demolishes Hillary's self-defense, New York Post
5. The Clinton Foundation received millions from investors as Putin took over 20% of US uranium deposits, Yahoo! News
6. How Putin’s Russia Gained Control of a U.S. Uranium Mine, Bloomberg
7. Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians gained U.S. uranium assets, Seattle Times

Given that, these subjects seem as worthy of mention in the section re her tenure as Sec of State in her bio as anything else currently mentioned there.CFredkin (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Algeria donation, as noted above it's already in the article as part of Note 15, the only thing that is missing is the spike in donations. But Algeria got nothing in return for this spike – during the next two years the State Department still issued human rights reports on the country that were full of criticism. The tenure article now states this, but what is the utility in including this here?

Regarding the Uranium One sources, with one exception all of these are from around April 23, when the story first appeared in the New York Times, and a lot of them are rehashes of the same points. (That exception is a June op-ed by Schweizer in the New York Post, which isn't usable as a RS.) The Uranium One story has not had "legs", for the simple reason that there's no evidence that Hillary even personally approved it nor that the State Department or the rest of the U.S. government agencies who approved it would have done anything differently if there hadn't been donations to the Clinton Foundation.

However, what the "Clinton Foundation ..." section may be missing is some kind of general statement that the donations made by foreign governments to the Foundation during Hillary's tenure subsequently raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest, even if there was no direct evidence of her altering decisions because of them. Let me see if I can come up with something for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't know that Algeria got nothing for their donation. That's an assumption that's not stated by the sources. It's possible that there were worse things the State Department could have reported or stronger actions it could have taken that were pre-empted by the "donation". While it's true that it hasn't actually been proven that Hillary had direct personal involvement in either scenario, that fact has not prevented the Fort Lee Lane Closure scandal from being mentioned prominently in Christie's bio. The known facts in this case are compelling in and of themselves, Hillary could certainly have prevented the appearance of wrongdoing by preventing the Foundation from accepting questionable "donations", and it's misleading not to mention them.CFredkin (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You've raised the Fort Lane lane closure matter a couple of times, so it's worth pointing out why that's different. In that case, Christie's deputy chief of staff and two high-ranking Christie appointments at the Port Authority have been indicted by federal authorities, with one of them pleading guilty in a deal, for multiple counts of conspiracy to punish local citizens via traffic flow in order to exact political revenge against a local official. And even if there is no evidence Christie was aware of this act, it has been very damaging to him politically – he has gone from being considered one of the Republican front-runners for 2016 to being in danger of relegation to the kiddie table for the next debate – and thus is of biographical significance. The rough equivalent would be if one of Hillary's top aides and two of her embassy-level appointments were under federal indictment for putting the screws to some foreign country (by stopping visa processing for its citizens, say) because that country's government was refusing to make donations to the Clinton Foundation. But nothing even close to that has happened. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of issues that have likely contributed to Christie's fall from grace, including state budget issues and multiple consecutive credit downgrades for the state (which are also mentioned in his bio). The Lane Closure scandal definitely is the most prominent factor. However the other issues have likely played a part, although Christie is not solely responsible for them. Likewise, the "donation" by Algeria (WP, 2/25), the email scandal (NYT, 3/2), and the Uranium One "donations" (NYT, 4/23) all broke within a 2 month period. The email scandal has definitely been the most prominent. However the other issues likely also had some impact on the decline in her popularity and credibility (although it's impossible to say to what extent). Consequently, and given the widespread coverage all three issues had in mainstream media sources, it seems reasonable to mention them all.CFredkin (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you about Christie's other problems and about the e-mail issue being the biggest of Hillary's recent problems. But the other damage to her hasn't been from the Algeria and Uranium One stories in particular – I doubt one out of a hundred poll responders could even name them. And it's not other specific stories - the UBS/IRS one or the Canadian donors one or the donations from Middle Eastern countries one that deny women's rights one or whatever. It's been from the general sense that somewhere in all the foreign donations to the Foundation – the ones that were allowed to continue while she was secretary, the ones that resumed after she left even though she might again be back in office as president – and in the money Bill got for speeches (even though approved by State) and that she gave between leaving office and starting her campaign – that in all of this, there is a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict of interest, or something just plain unseemly, even though there is no evidence of quid pro quo's being granted or decisions that she altered from what she would have done anyway. I'm still looking for a really good published overview story that says this – it's not ideal as a source here, but this Doyle McManus column is in the ballpark of what I'm getting at. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

At this point, since the arguments on either side have been made, would you be amenable to a neutral WP:Third Opinion on this?CFredkin (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)