Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Defensiveness in the lead?

The only first lady to have been subpoenaed, Clinton faced a federal grand jury in 1996 regarding the Whitewater controversy; no charges were brought against her related to this or any other controversies in her life.

Emphasis mine. This has been nagging at me for a couple of days. It seems especially campaign-ish, defensive, and unencyclopedic. It's a lot like saying "[Bill] Clinton was acquitted by the U.S. Senate in 1999, served his complete term of office, and was never accused of beating his wife."

We're an encyclopedia. If Hillary had ever been charged with something, it would be in the article, and everybody understands that. We don't need to state that this didn't happen.

I have no problem with the un-bolded part. If we say she faced a grand jury, we have to say there was no indictment. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think if we mention the grand jury and don't mention the result (of no charges) the pro-hillary crowd will say its not neutral. However, the wording could be significantly improved. "The only first lady to have been subpoenaed, Clinton faced a federal grand jury in 1996 regarding the Whitewater controversy which resulted in no charges" I think reduces the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" implications. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure you do understand my point :), see my last sentence. My complaint is about the "other controversies in her life" part. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I seem to recall that there were some charges, just not against her. See MacDougall, if memory serves. Also, Clinton has been involved in numerous controversies, and I don't mind a brief nod to that fact in the lead, which is accomplished by the bolded language, and would be missing without the bolded language.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The mention of the controversies is not the issue, feel free to discuss that separately. If we feel that's needed in the lead, it could be there without saying there were never any charges against her. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

reply below.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss is correct. The sentence should end before the bolded part above. The lede is to summarize important things that did happen, not the many things that did not. Jonathunder (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that it's correct. If we say or imply in the lead that there were other controversies, then we would have to say there were no charges, just like with Whitewater. The bolded material in question is a very appropriate "nod to Travelgate, Filegate, and Vince Foster files, all of which were subjects of formal Independent Counsel investigations in addition to Whitewater proper" (quoting another editor above).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I could live with it seprated from that sentence and expanded a little to provide some context; e.g., trying hard to be neutral: "During Clinton's career, she has been involved in various scandals and controversies. Some of these had the potential of criminal charges, but none were ever brought." I can see how staunch Hillary defenders would strongly oppose the word "criminal" anywhere in the lead, and "none were ever brought" could be read as "she was never brought to justice". I don't know how to say this any more neutrally, however. Open to suggestion. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem with the current wording. We say later on that she got a "polarized" response from the pubic, the plethora of controversies explains why. The link to the "other controversies" makes clear just what we're talking about, and makes clear that this is not mere defensiveness. Your proposal seems pretty long compared to what we've got now, and I would argue that there was no potential for criminal charges if she was in fact innocent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Innocent people are charged with crimes all the time; that's what courts are for. If a controversy involved people accusing her of committing a crime (and I don't think all of them did), the situation had the potential for criminal charges. If you can suggest a better way to state that some of the controversies were about possible criminal activity, regardless of her guilt or innocence, I'm listening. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a better way to state that she could have been charged in various controversies, than the way we state it now. It's clear, concise, and provides a wikilink for readers who want more info about her controversies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Still needs context, imo. Seems awkward and out of place as an appendage to the statement about Whitewater. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to this: "The only first lady to have been subpoenaed, Clinton faced a federal grand jury in 1996 regarding the Whitewater controversy; no charges were brought against her related to this or the various other controversies in her life." But to me the change is unnecessary. Does it sound better to you?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Let's wait for more participation. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the two topics should be broken up. The subpoena is notable. The scandals are notable. but to mention the subpoena in the context of the other controversy may give a false impression that they were all investigated or prosecuted to that degree, which is untrue. The scandals are certainly a notable part of her repuattion, but they should be mentioned independently. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That would arguably create undue weight on scandals and controversies. If it's broken up, then the stuff that's broken off will probably be deleted entirely from the lead, by other editors. Whitewater was not the only controversy subjected to a formal Independent Counsel investigation, and there's no need to treat it as unique. Do you really want a separate sentence in the lead for each formal independent Counsel investigation?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

One or two sentences in the lead would be undue weight on scandals and controversies? After the megatons of RS coverage of those scandals and controversies? Surely you jest. As for "other editors", nothing will happen in this area without consensus. If that goes against you, welcome to Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I said "arguably." Given that gigatons of RS coverage of the email scandal have not gotten that into the lead, I can virtually guarantee that more info about scandals from the last millennium will last in the lead for no more than a day. IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I haven't been paying much attention to this article until a few days ago, but I'd love to hear some policy-based arguments against such brief mentions. Consensus is not about numbers, and there are ways to deal with persistent POV-pushers. DS should help. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The policy-based thing to do would be to carefully look at the section of this BLP titled "Whitewater and other investigations" and ensure it's correctly summarized in the lead. I'm unaware whether you've read that section, but it would be the place to start. That section mentions as to Whitewater that the investigation found "insufficient evidence that either Clinton had engaged in criminal wrongdoing". So you wouldn't necessarily be off-base proposing that the word "criminal" be used in the lead, but it would be best to use that word as quoted; that section of the BLP does not refer to "potential" criminality. Anyway, I still like this sentence of the lead as-is, just like the subheader says Whitewater and "other investigations" we can just generally refer to "other controversies" in the lead. The headers do not segregate the controversies, and I don't see why each controversy deserves its own sentence in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My proposal dropped that wording. I agree that that wording in that place and way is probably inappropriate. However, it probably is lead worthy and certainly sourceable in some other way to say there there have been a large number of scandals and controversies that have surrounded her. [1] [2][3][4][5]Gaijin42 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It should say "Clinton has faced wave after wave of bullshit charges by Republicans who think nothing of abusing their positions of power, and all have been repelled with grace and ease, mainly because Hillary is a whole spoonful of awesomesauce."

...
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Actually, I think the initial instincts of Madruss were correct. The bit in bold should just be nixed. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As the person who's made 2,374 edits to this article over 11 years and is responsible for most of its current content, I can say this:

Way back in 2007, this text was added to the lead: "In 1996 she became the first First Lady to be subpoenaed to testify before a Federal grand jury, as a consequence of the Whitewater scandal; however she was never charged with any wrongdoing in this or several other investigations during the Clinton administration." It has stayed in the lead ever since – through nine years of millions of readers and hundreds of editors looking at it, through multiple GA/FA review cycles leading up to attaining FA status a couple of years ago – becoming the slightly differently worded but otherwise identical: "The only first lady to have been subpoenaed, Clinton testified before a federal grand jury in 1996 regarding the Whitewater controversy; no charges were brought against her related to this or other investigations during her husband's presidency."

What this text meant was that during her time as First Lady (which is what this paragraph of the lead is about), Hillary was the subject of formal investigations by the United States Office of the Independent Counsel related to four matters: the Whitewater matter, the Travel Office firings, the improper use of FBI files issue, and the removal of Foster files issue. These were the only times that she has ever been the subject of such investigations (until maybe the emails matter currently going on, depending upon what the current DoJ/FBI inquiry turns out to be). There was no link in this text to "other investigations" because listing them would be a little bit cumbersome and because we don't have a separate article on the Foster files matter. In any case the Table of Contents has a subsection underneath "First Lady of the United States" titled "Whitewater and other investigations" so it was pretty obvious where the reader could go to find out what the "other investigations" subject to Independent Counsel investigation were. The investigations were important because, depending upon one's point of view, they revealed Hillary as inherently power hungry and corrupt, or the victim of a partisan witch-hunt by an out-of-control Independent Counsel mechanism, or something in between. Thus they, and the result of them, need to be mentioned in the lead.

Then a few days ago, this aspect of the lead suddenly became destabilized due to the actions of a couple of editors. Why, I ask? Shouldn't some value be given to the fact that this stable text served well for nine years of a highly read, heavily reviewed article? The changes were not for the better. Saying "... no charges were brought against her related to this or any other controversies in her life" is out of scope of the paragraph, which just deals with her time as First Lady. It introduces an in-text link over a category, which usually isn't a great idea. And as pointed out above, it has an air of either defensiveness or insinuation about it. We're not trying to discuss all her controversies here, which for any political figure who's been nationally visible for three decades is going to be a long list. We're just trying to discuss these formal investigations that took place during a particular time.

There's a saying in the computer field: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This text was not broken. It should be put back the way it was and everyone can move on. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

But it was broke. Saying that no charges were brought against her during her husband's presidency insinuates that charges may have been brought against her outside his tenure. Why not just say she's never had charges brought against her in any controversies? Why limit it to controversies during her husband's tenure? It was unfair to the BLP subject that we hem and haw, instead of flatly saying she's never had any charges brought against her. She never has, has she?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Re your second sentence, I've seen that argument a few times before and have never bought it. In most cases, the content says what it says and no more, and if a reader reads something that's not there, that's their choice and problem. I seriously doubt other fact-writers such as news reporters think about that when they write, and the knots get extremely tangled when we start doing so. I would sincerely be interested in reading any Wikipedia guidance directly supporting such thinking. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Help me please to better understood your view. Is it correct that you think the current text ("no charges were brought against her related to this or any other controversies in her life") insinuates that Hillary Clinton was involved in other serious controversies, but the previous text ("no charges were brought against her related to this or other investigations during her husband's presidency") does not insinuate that the absence of charges against her is limited to the presidency of her husband? Is that correct?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Separating the two parts to that:
(1) My concern in this whole thread has been about charges, not controversies. I proposed a minor expansion about the controversies. I really don't know how to respond to that as it is worded; can't seem to get my head around that.
(2) Correct. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll reply in those two parts. (1) She's never been charged in any controversy, so I don't see why you would think it's okay for us to say she wasn't charged in one named controversy but not okay to say she wasn't charged in other unnamed controversies; (2) I don't see why you think it's better to say "during her husband's presidency" than to say "in her life", given that the former statement is needlessly restrictive while the latter is more informative.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

My view is not about what we're saying but where we're saying it. It's about structure and organization, and about the adverse effect when something is out of place. See [6]. I think that's the thrust of WTR's latest comments as well, aside from the "content tenure" aspect. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this is my last comment of the evening. Your proposal and WTR's are at opposite ends of the spectrum. You are still proposing to say she was not charged in Whitewater and adding this: "During Clinton's career, she has been involved in various scandals and controversies. Some of these had the potential of criminal charges, but none were ever brought." In contrast, WTR wants to limit all of this to the husband's presidency, and remove the wikilink that informs readers about the Hillary controversies throughout her career, and avoid adding any sentences. I support the status quo which is far more concise than your proposal but gives readers the same basic information: she's had lots of controversies but none of them resulted in charges. FWIW, I don't think there's any chance WTR would agree with your proposal, but he can speak for himself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Geeky grammar question

The lead contains something very controversial called a comma splice, in this sentence:

“ Rodham co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977, became the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978, then the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979. ”

Does anyone object to it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a huge problem - and it certainly isn't "geeky" - but it'd be better with an "and" before "became" -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Good grammar ain't geeky speshly in a cyclopedia. Yes, I find that grating. I have rewritten the passage to fix that, while I think reducing awkward repetitiveness and improving flow. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not sure about the comma after 1978. That is in fact a gray area and I wouldn't object to its removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If she becomes president...do we split the article?

The article is rather long, though it makes sense considering her long tenure in politics. Were she to win the presidency, would we split any of the material from it? Informant16 May 5, 2016

Some of us may split, others may stay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

New articles would be about her presidency and administration, and I doubt very much would be removed here. I wouldn't see a problem with using Obama's articles as a general guide, without feeling the need to mimic them precisely. So, how much pre-presidency content is present in Obama articles other than Barack Obama? Not much, I reckon. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean, aside from Early life and career of Barack Obama, Family of Barack Obama, Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, United States Senate career of Barack Obama, List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate, Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, etc. Obliviously!
You may have detected that I don't know shit about Wikipedia's coverage of Barack Obama.
But any split decisions like that have nothing to do with whether she wins in November. This article doesn't seem overly large to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Noun usage of abbreviated U.S.

Re: [7]

Re the edit summary, please have another look at MOS:U.S.. The relevant sentence begins with the condition, "When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence...". Your changes do not satisfy that condition. Given that Wikipedia apparently hasn't yet taken a stand on this question, I guess it comes down to local consensus, and if necessary I'll go to RfC at VP with this. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support noun usage of U.S. - per my entire life experience and an abundance of noun usage in reliable sources. On what planet does this sound the slightest bit unnatural: "The Beatles came to the U.S. in 1964." Why does it sound natural? Because it's so incredibly commonplace. And that's just as true for written English as spoken.
  Never mind that such a proscription would make no sense, on multiple counts. We don't restrict "USSR" or "UK" to adjectives, why should the United States be singled out for such special treatment? U.S. is an abbreviation for United States, and they are grammatically interchangeable, with the only difference being one of register, formal or not formal.
  What any style guides say is far less important to me, if that hasn't made its way into Wikipedia MOS. I suspect like most things there are plenty of style guides that take the opposing view, anyway. For one, AP as of 2005, "bowing to increasingly popular usage".[8]
  If you want to get into an exhaustive survey of style guides, it would make sense to save that for an RfC. I sincerely hope an RfC will not be necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The AP Style Book that I have from somewhere says "United States • as a noun, United States: The prime minister left for the United States yesterday. • as an adjective, U.S. (no spaces): A U.S. soldier was killed in Baghdad yesterday." The Style Book is not online for free, but if you do this search you'll see a bunch of sites that have captured that guideline as a reference to the Style Book. Chicago 16th ed. says "In running text, spell out United States as a noun; reserve US for the adjective form only (in which position the abbreviation is generally preferred)." That's not free online either but this search will show references to it. The style guide for an academic political science journal that I'm familiar with also has the same rule – nouns United States, adjectives U.S. Regarding MOS:U.S., I don't know where that 'When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence' rule comes from; I've never seen a style guide say that. But I think the spirit of MOS:U.S. means that if you'd like your writing to be perceived as more professional, stick to United States for nouns.

I will concede that I'm old school. For instance, I would spell out "United States" the first time it occurs in the lead, whatever context it is in, and I would use the full "United States Senator" and "United States Secretary of State" the first time they are used. I will also concede that attempts to make WP articles look more professional are probably hopeless to begin with. And finally don't worry, I agree that this does not need an RfC. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Absent Wikipedia MOS, I don't personally care if all style guides oppose this noun usage, when that makes so ... little ... sense. See the points I made above. I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that U.S. is easier to read than United States, the mind processing the former as a single word. And I'll take readability over someone's idea of propriety any day. The difference may seem insignificant when isolated here, but it makes a real difference to reading comprehension when one is wading through a sea of unbroken text. At least it does to me, and it seems unlikely I'm that unusual in that respect. We don't all read the same way, and science has known that for decades.
I don't disagree with spellng out on first use, per your last paragraph—done—but that's a separate issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

My eye absorbs "United States" just as quickly as "U.S.": both are familiar patterns that I immediately comprehend. I don't know anything about reading theory so I don't know how general that is. But if minimizing the number of characters encountered were a goal of formal writing, it would encourage "could've" over "could have", "thru" over "through", and so forth. In any case, the letter of MOS:U.S. appears to be on your side more than mine, so do what you will. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of two parentheticals from lead

I disagree with this removal of information from the lead. We say she voted for the Iraq War and parenthetically mention "which she later regretted", and shortly thereafter say she opposed the 2007 surge while parenthetically mentioning "which she later praised".

As to the first (inserted by WTR), I think it's very important to very briefly mention her change of heart about supporting the Iraq War; it's been a key argument of hers to try and unload the political burden of that war, to earn support from people who strongly opposed it. And the later parenthetical is of the same sort, acknowledging an error on her part as regards something that we all agree belongs in the lead.

Both parentheticals are very brief (four words each), but very revealing about her fallibility, and her willingness to express fallibility, at least in certain important instances. Without them in the lead, many readers would assume she has maintained and defended these two positions, which is what politicians usually do once they have made a decision. And I don't think there was consensus to remove these two parentheticals, or either of them (a redlinked editor recently tried to remove one of them, without any edit summary or talk page discussion).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you that the two "parentheticals" should remain. if these issues are to be mentioned in the lead at all, it should reflect her current position as well as her historic position. And in my opinion including it is neutral, not POV. The parenthetical information does not reflect either positively or negatively on her - or rather it can do either, depending on your viewpoint: "proves she is flexible" or "proves she is shifty". As long as we just include the information without comment, it is neutral. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I restored them both (without the explanatory note) per WP:BRD while we discuss the issue here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I find the wording problematic. To say that she later "regretted" it could either mean that she felt that she had voted incorrectly, or that she felt that she voted correctly but disliked the political consequences of the vote. I think that it is more accurate to say that she voted for the resolution, but later disapproved of how the President exercised his authority under the act. I also think that "praised" is a bit effusive to describe her rather tepid support of the troop surge (the exact quote is "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working. "We're just years too late in changing our tactics"). bd2412 T 18:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll get to the first parenthetical eventually. As to effusiveness of the second parenthetical, the exact quote you gave is incomplete. She also said, "The Iraq surge worked" to secretary Gates during the Obama administration, and said in 2008 to Jack Keane "You were right, this really did work". Clinton has never denied either of these quotes AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Then how about "later conceded that it had worked"? Praise still sounds effusive. bd2412 T 19:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could somehow keep it to four words, just like the other parenthetical. "which she later commended"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that's better. bd2412 T 19:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

As to the first parenthetical, she later called her vote for the Iraq War Resolution a "mistake". See Lerner, Adam. "Hillary Clinton says her Iraq war vote was a 'mistake'", Politico (May 19, 2015).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Then how about "which she later deemed a mistake"? bd2412 T 19:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you disagree that she regretted it? The details can await the body of the article, I think. In retrospect, a lot of people regretted it. For sure, "regret" is a softer word than "mistake", but it's slightly more concise to leave out "deemed", and anyway "ABC News decided to survey the views of the senators who served in 2002, most of whom remain in the Senate. The survey indicates that those senators say that if they knew then what they know now, President Bush would never have been given the authority to use force in Iraq."[9]Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

On reflection, I guess it's not intolerable. bd2412 T 01:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing both parentheticals from the lead (note that I only added the first one to balance AYW's insertion of the second one). Talk after the fact is easy; it's the decisions and votes that people make when they hold power that really matter and that belong in the lead. It's further complicated by the fact that no one knows whether Hillary's 2014 and 2015 statements regarding her Iraq War Resolution vote are genuine or made out of political convenience; that vote cost her a lot in 2008 and she was determined that it not cost her again in 2016 (although to some degree it is anyway). And her remarks saying that the surge worked have been in private, not public. These are matters for the body of the article to deal with, not the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

These two very brief things may have been said in non-public settings, but they were not evidently said in confidence. Then they were reported very publicly, they have not been denied, and they are both very pertinent to the non-parenthetical parts of those sentences of the lead. This is a BLP of her life, not her public life, and not the part of her public life that she wants to be publicly discussed. So I don't see a problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

For the lede, the parentheticals are just very shoddy indeed. When it comes to the Iraq War vote, it turned out to be one of the defining moments of her political life; however, later saying it was a "mistake" has barely registered in comparison, even if I'm sure her campaign would dearly love otherwise. As for "The Surge", I don't think either the condemnation of it or the associated parenthetical are lede-worthy at all, and all mention of it should be removed in favor of treatment solely in the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to say Clinton regretted the vote. She might have said she did but we are not mind readers. Agree to keep in lede but remove info about the surge as it was not as significant as the Iraq vote. TFD (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

We are not mind readers, which cuts both ways. Statements are taken at face value in general. If there is reason to doubt the claim, it is done via presenting a competing POV. But such back and forth would certainly be undue for the lead. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The lead says: "She also voted for the Iraq Resolution (which she later regretted), sought to hasten the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 (which she later commended)" (emphasis added). Readers will draw their own conclusions from this sentence and from the last parenthetical, but if the bolded part is significant enough to put in then so is the very brief parenthetical following it. Moreover, the first parenthetical was inserted explicitly to balance out the second, and so removing the second would create imbalance. That last parenthetical will suggest to some readers that if she had realized the surge would work then she would not have done the bolded part (i.e. would not have sought to hasten the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and would not have opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007). Other readers may conclude from the last parenthetical that she was just being polite to the troops. Anyway, those four brief words are appropriate for the lead, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The lede should say she supported the Iraq Resolution and stop there. The surge is not as significant and the two parentheticals, especially in sequence, insinuate something which is not supported by RS. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

For years, the lead has said more about the Iraq War than that she voted for it.[10] and the issue has been sufficiently prominent in reliable sources that the lead should say more about it than that she voted for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That's irrelevant and not specific. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Reversion explanation

I rolled back edits that expanded the "Email controversy" section to include stuff from a highly dubious Fox News story that claimed the FBI expanded its probe, with just a single anonymous source. Let's only do this when (and if) higher quality sourcing becomes available, especially since this is the main BLP article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You also deleted a WaPo cite. Three sources (The Hill (newspaper), Fox News, and the Washington Post) each supported the text that you removed. Additionally, you reverted the word "governmental" in the following sentence: "The foundation's new stance as of April 2015 and Clinton's presidential candidacy was to accept foreign governmental donations only from the governments of Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom." I strongly object to reversion of this well-sourced uncontroversial information, and also object to the incomplete subsequent explanation above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

But it is controversial. Enough said. BLP, American Politics, etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The behavior being investigated is controversial, sure. But the fact that the deleted sentence is fully supported by the cited sources is not controversial at all. Nor is the deleted word "governmental" controversial. On the other hand, removal of this reliably sourced information, together with an obviously deficient rationale, is extremely controversial, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no there there. The Hill is just repeating Fox News, which has the dubious unnamed source. WaPo also has nothing concrete either. This is the primary BLP article, so I must insist on higher standards of sourcing and an explanation of how this passed WP:WEIGHT, which it currently absolutely does not. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If you have a problem with edits, you could do everyone a big favor by confining yourself to reverting those edits. I inserted the word "governmental"[11][12] to remove a blatant error from this BLP, and yet you have not suggested that that edit of mine was problematic. Why did you revert that? Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Do you really think it's fine to revert an edit that's been defended here at the talk page of this high-profile article, without giving the slightest explanation, and without even acknowledging you did so? I put the word "governmental" into this BLP to correct an error. You took it out. Why?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Scjessey included 'governmental' in the reversion by accident, but I'm not sure the existing text was unclear and your change resulted in a double use of 'government'-based words. I've revised it again to remove the duplication. As for the stuff Scjessey reverted intentionally, I have to agree with him, it doesn't belong at this time. The Fox News and WaPo stories do not reinforce each other and at this point I'm skeptical about anything coming out of any of these Hillary investigation stories. I suspect most of these unnamed sources are trying to influence the outcome one way or the other or they don't actually know anything in the first place. Let's wait and see what happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

100% in agreement here. Also yes, I didn't notice the "governmental" thing because it was a 7-edit reversion. Thank you for fixing that, WTR. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for accepting "governmental". Since 1RR now apparently applies at this article, I suppose there will be more consecutive edits, as opposed to intermittent edits, and we'll all have to examine them more carefully. And when an excessive reversion is alleged at this talk page, it ought to be addressed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear why you felt the need to remind everyone of 1RR, and it's also not clear why you felt the need to mischaracterize a reversion as "excessive" either. Please don't do that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Give me a break. Your revert was excessive because it reverted more edits than necessary, and deleted material to which no one objected. Please be more careful in future. I even pointed out your error above, and your reply (at 20:10 on 13 May) completely ignored it, and eventually WTR restored the material you deleted. As for mentioning 1RR, I did so because a series of consecutive edits cannot count as more than one revert, so I expect people will now be more inclined to make consecutive edits rather than intermittent ones. It's not rocket science.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of what happened. It's clear you are talking about reversions and 1RR as some sort of mild threat. Please don't do that. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

That's ridiculous.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Counting protocols aside, snarky comments and dispruptive behaviour are grounds for an immediate block here. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Rumors

"World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction."

There have been rumors about Hillary Clinton's sexual orientation, with this the most recent gem from Yoko Ono: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/yoko-ono-i-had-an-affair-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-70s/ Also rumors about affair with her staffer Huma Abedin. Put in or no? RachelWex RachelWex 20:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC) No. Biography of living person. See policies at WP:BLP. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Specifically, WP:BLPGOSSIP. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC) The sources in general (and specifically the source provided) are woefully inadequate for inclusion in a BLP article. If the rumors are covered in many reliable sources (particularly if the rumors become a campaign issue that Clinton needs to respond to) it is possible they could satisfy BLP in the future. But they clearly do not now. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC) In particular WND's own disclaimer reads "World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction." Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

a couple of thoughts

1) the article currently deals only with her email server from the aspect of whether it handled classified material. It does not deal with the very real security problems associated with having a homebrew server handle strategic material. Classified or not, such material can be damaging in the wrong hands -- I give you the Panama Papers as an example. This has not been covered, I grant you, on the ten o'clock news, but there are a large number of analyses of the issue in reliable information technology sources.

2) Article seems to omit the existencce of the Guistra and Guistra/Slim associated foundations. Or did I miss them? I admitted only scanned the article looking for a fact I needed elsewhere.

In any event, I present these suggestions for discussion. I am not in a position to write them up and wikilitigate over them at the moment, but assuming for the sake of the argument that reliable sources exist for both -- and I can assure you that they do -- what should we write about these issues and in what section? Elinruby (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If something has not received widespread coverage then it does not belong in this article. What may be important to you may not be to someone else and the determination is made by the relative coverage in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the home email server, I personally agree, the existing text should say something explicit about how it was a security risk. Whether it actually got hacked or not, it was one of several reasons why using a private email server was a Really Bad Idea. But modifying this text at this point is not a rewarding proposition since there are more speculations than facts right now. Soon enough we'll get an official report of some kind and we can reference was it says about the server as a security vulnerability.

Regarding Giustra, there are a number of mentions of him in the Clinton Foundation article. They belong there rather than here because the Giustra relationship has had more to do with Bill and the Foundation than it has to do with Hillary. There is also one mention of Slim in the Foundation article, but there could probably be more. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillary became and was an officer of the foundation. Just like the rest of the family she clings to so tightly come campaign time. The Giustra info is just as relevant to her as it is to Bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.168.75 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Bill has been an officer of the foundation for all 16 years of its existence, Hillary for only two years (during which time she was mostly planning her 2016 campaign) and is not an officer of it now. There's no comparison. Hillary isn't even the second most important Clinton at the foundation – that would be Chelsea. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton Net Worth

Why does her net worth keep fluctuating between somewhere around 20 million and somewhere around 40 million? If you can't come up with a consistent, RELIABLE and VERIFIABLE number, delete it altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.168.75 (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The net worth of a politician is almost always an estimate that is based on their financial disclosure forms, which don't supply exact figures but rather ranges of assets. It can fluctuate significantly over time due to changes in asset value (stock market, real estate, etc) or significant expenditures (e.g. Hillary lost $13 million of her own money in her 2008 campaign). It can be complicated by marriage (e.g. what is John McCain's net worth? it all depends on how you allocate Cindy McCain's considerable wealth). It can be further complicated by how you value intangibles (e.g. Trump claiming that his net worth is higher than some business magazines think because of the value of his personal brand for licensing and similar deals). This article currently says "As of 2015, she was estimated to be worth over $30 million on her own, or $45–53 million with her husband.[410]" That seems reasonable to me. If the truth is that she's actually worth $20 million or $40 million, that's still a close figure as these things go. And it gives you an order of magnitude for purposes of comparison – she's clearly worth a lot more than Bernie (around $500,000) and a lot less than Trump (some number of billions). That's of value to the reader and so it should stay in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)