Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

Removing religion from infobox

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content
  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)
  • Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Go for it! … (I see you went for it). - Wikidemon (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to seeing the edit war when this happens at Barack Obama. :::grabs popcorn::: -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
That is an interesting question. I just finished up all of the 40 candidates for US president (Only on Rand Paul did I see any opposition). Perhaps for my next batch I should address all present and past US presidents and vice presidents who are alive or recently deceased? And yes, popcorn would be in order for the Barack Obama page if I did that. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, there is no "religion" entry in the Obama infobox. --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Oh, I see it had been removed during this discussion. It has now been restored. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I very much support an RFC on this question. In the mean time, the longstanding consensus version should be restored, which I just attempted to do, but will not attempt again per 1RR.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:LOCALCON an RfC on this page cannot override the policies I listed above. What you need to do is to either change the policies or give us some sources that establish that Hillary Clinton meets the requirements in those policies. As for your edit comment (" I don't see a reason in the world why the Barack Obama article should state religion in infobox but this BLP should not."), first, WP:OSE. Second, I will be dealing with the Barack Obama page (along with all other living or recently dead US presidents and VPs) in my next batch. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. Consensus in an RfC decides what editorial decision to make based on the policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I would really hate to see you go back to previous presidents and vice presidents, and remove the information which has been part of their public persona forever. How can one RfC, in 2016, involving maybe a couple of dozen people, change a longstanding consensus about pre-existing articles? Most lists of presidents I saw growing up included "religion" as automatically as they included "state of birth". That was the tradition, it was part of their public persona, and it was accepted by everyone, including Wikipedia. As I said before, there is a reason why we have articles like List of Presidents of the United States by religious affiliation. They state a religion and it becomes part of their record, whether or not they practice it, whether or not they are notably pious. (I very much doubt if Richard Nixon ever attended a Quaker meeting as president - or possibly in his life! But his mother was Quaker so that's what he said, and that's part of his legacy.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, quit calling these new standards "policies". They are not policies. They are not even guidelines. They are the result of an RfC at a WikiProject page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Quite right, they are not actual policies and even if they were it would still require a local editorial consensus to interpret and apply the policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree with User:MelanieN and User:Maunus that they are not actual policies, but that seems to be the prevalent view here at this BLP (at least judging by what the infobox says), and policy ought to be applied in an evenhanded way to all BLPs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Local consensus decides how to apply the policy in and whether two cases are sufficiently similar for "evenhandedness" across contexts to make sense.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
True, but local consensus cannot amend policy, or decide that policy means something it does not. Maybe the best place for an RFC about this would be at WP:BLP/N or at the talk page of WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Local consensus decides what policy means in a given case. For someone to decide that such a local decision is mistaken it would have to address the decision specifically at a higher level. It is not possible for an editor to unilaterally enforce a prior policy decision if faced with a local consensus that has chosen a different interpretation of policy. I think it is a mistake to consider this a BLP issue - it is not in most cases, but simply a question of whether a local consensus consider religious affiliation sufficiently notable to include or not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You don't think that a consensus or RFC outcome at the talk page of WP:BLP (as to the meaning of policy) could subsequently be overturned by local consensus, do you?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If the consensus at WP:BLP is either cmpletely general (all blps must do x) or specifically about a given article, then it requires a local consensus to determine how and if to apply a given decision locally.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Could you explain, in your own words, what WP:LOCALCON means if an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) says that the religion should be removed from all BLPs and a local consensus at Talk:Hillary Clinton says that it should be retained? In particular how do you interpret "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale"? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you talking to me or °Maunus?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Maunus (the post directly above mine). Manus says things like "local consensus to determine how and if to apply a given decision locally" but in this case the decision was that certain requirements must be sourced, and it sounds a lot like Maunus thinks that we can arricve at a local consensus that they don't need to be sourced on this particular page. I may be misunderstanding him, so I am asking for clarification. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

These standards are not policies. Stop calling them policies; they are not. They are not even guidelines. They are the result of a discussion at "other pages". Please read WP:POLICY. It says:

  • Other pages that can be found in the Wikipedia: namespace include community process pages (which facilitate application of the policies and guidelines), historical pages, WikiProject pages, how-to or help pages (also found in the Help namespace), community discussion pages and noticeboards. These pages are not policies or guidelines, although they may contain valuable advice or information.

You are enforcing this new standard as if it was a formal policy, a "widely accepted standard that all users should follow." That is not even close to accurate. --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: though you were addressing User:Guy Macon, I would like to insert a brief comment here. As I understand, there is a policy disagreement which boils down to this: WP:BLPCAT has a hatnote saying "See also: Wikipedia:Categorization of people; Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates; Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality; and Wikipedia:Eponymous overcategorization", and WP:BLPCAT later says "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates...." and so the question is whether the latter statement about "these principles" includes all the principles at the pages wikilinked in the hatnote. I say it doesn't, User:Xenophrenic says it does.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLPCAT is "an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".
BLPCAT says "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."
BLPCAT references WP:CATDEF, "an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow".
CATDEF says "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having".
Just to make sure that editors don't argue about what "defining" means, CATFEF displays the word "defining" in bold and links it to WP:DEFINING, a "a how-to guide detailing process on some aspect or aspects of Wikipedia's norms and practices".
DEFINING says "This page explains how to apply the DEFINING concept in the context of Wikipedia categorization, by quoting the relevant guidance in several related guidelines".
DEFINING references WP:NON-DEFINING, which is another "English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow".
NON-DEFINING says "Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful: a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. If the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining. Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the topic."
So the question is, are we going to argue about whether to follow these policies and guidelines, or are we going to attempt to find citations that establish that Hillary Clinton's Methodism is a defining characteristic? I say [ Citation Needed ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
TLDR.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Guy, you say "BLPCAT references WP:CATDEF". But merely in a "see also" hatnote, right? That's a far cry from incorporating WP:CATDEF by reference is it not?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I will take that as a "yes" to "are we going to argue about whether to follow these policies and guidelines?" and a "no" to "are we going to attempt to find citations that establish that Hillary Clinton's Methodism is a defining characteristic?". So are you arguing that it is a defining characteristic but you don't need any citations to prove it, are you arguing that you don't think that the defining characteristic requirement exists, or are you arguing that we should ignore the requirements on this one page? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:CATDEF applies to categories. We are discussing an infobox, rather than a category. What makes you think WP:CATDEF applies to infoboxes?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Nobody here is arguing to include the president's religion in a category, so there's no point in spelling out how this applies to categories. We ARE (or at least I am) arguing to include a president's religion in the infobox - at least for past presidents where the religion has been there forever by consensus. (I am OK with leaving it out lower-level politicians, for whom it is not so traditional to specify their religion.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLPCAT makes it clear why we have these requirements for religion in BLPs and also makes it clear that "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs" Not "this policy applies equally to..." but rather "These principles apply equally to...." If you read thje reasons why religion in infoboxes gets special treatment, it becomes rather silly to claim that these are vital principles at the bottom of the page but can be ignored in a box of the riight of the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Guy, are you arguing that BLPCAT includes CATDEF via incorporation by reference?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You said earlier that "WP:CATDEF applies to categories. We are discussing an infobox, rather than a category." and that is lliterally true (and no, I am not silly enough to think that a "see also" incorporates a howto into a policy) However, the act of categorization has always applied to infoboxes. If you want to add, say Category:Convicted book-thieves to the bottom of the Hillary Clinton page, we have special requirements that you would have to meet -- requirements that are stricter than, say, CategoryArkansas Democrats. But those requirements do not change if you try to call her an Arkansas Democrat or a convicted book-thieve in an infobox entry. Categorization means "to assign someone to a category" (using the plain English meaning of "category") not just "to assign someone to an entry in the Wikimedia Category namespace." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies and guidelines use the word "category" to refer to the categories at category pages (that are linked at the bottom of an article), not to refer more generally to anything anywhere in the article that distinguishes one person from another. WP:Categorization begins: "This page contains guidance on the proper use of the categorization function in Wikipedia. For information on the mechanics of the function, category syntax, etc., see Help:Category. For quick answers, see the Categorization FAQ. For proposals to delete, merge, or rename categories, follow the instructions at Categories for discussion. Please use it before undertaking any complicated re-categorization of existing categories or mass creation of new categories." Clearly, categorization refers to the particular categorization function that Wikipedia uses, not to the more general concept of categorization which is done in virtually every sentence of this Hillary Clinton BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes? There was extensive discussion and a clear consensus about politicians who are religious but known for their politics, not their religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
[After edit conflict in response to Guy's rhetorical question about whether we're going to follow his interpretation of policy, or argue about it] Neither. I'm all in favor of removing religion from Clinton's infobox (and also Obama's, despite being a special case, and also Rand Paul), I'm not ready to consider any categories as part of that decision, and I don't feel like I have to pledge allegiance to any particular interpretation of BLP policy or applicability of various prior RfCs in order to say so. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll detail my reasons if ever we're able to dispose of the policy issue. In the meantime, I'll just note that WP:Other stuff exists says: "The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
My only point on "the policy issue" is that Guy keeps calling the new requirements "policies" and insisting that we must follow them as if they are absolute and binding. That insistence does not seem to be justified, and that is what the rest of us are rejecting. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the religious designations to the article on Rick Santorum and have proposed the same on the talk page of Ted Cruz. Seeing as they both publically identify with a certain religion, and that religion undoubtedly impacts their political positions, the removal of that designation in these cases was not even consistent with the "policy" that has been quoted here. Display name 99 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Religion should definitely be part of the politician infobox, even if they're secular and only pay lip service to religion (like Trump does), it's important to get a good profile of the politician in question, and religious background is part of the wider picture. HempFan (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support removal per Village Pump overwhelming consensus on religion in infoxboxes. Furthermore I would like to point out that will be the eventual outcome of any sort of no-consensus. Village Pump consensus included removing the parameter from the infobox itself. That means the religion value will disappear from all un-fixed articles when the template is ultimately updated. Consensus was that the religion parameter would be included in relevant subtemplates such as clergy, and that religion could be inserted into generic infoboxes via a custom parameter in exceptional cases where religion was of exceptional significance, like clergy. The rules for "exceptional cases" are not yet well defined, but Hillary Clinton clearly does not fall under that exception. If an attempt is made to insert a custom religion parameter, a no-consensus on a custom parameter would result in reverting to no custom parameter. Debating the removal here will ultimately be a waste of time, unless there is an affirmative consensus for inclusion. Alsee (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Applicability of categorization policies and guidelines to the infobox of this BLP

Do guidelines and policies about Wikipedia's categorization function, such as WP:CATDEF, apply to declarations made in the infobox of this BLP that "categorize" Hillary Clinton in the ordinary English sense of the word, independently of whatever category declarations may be placed at the end of the wikitext in this (and other) Wikipedia pages?20:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • No. WP:CAT seems pretty clear that it applies to the process of making category declarations at the end of a page's wikitext, and not more generally to every classification or the like made within the text of a Wikipedia article, and I don't think anything in WP:BLP broadens this applicability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Categories and infoboxes are two different things, and there is no reason to suppose that a rule that applies to one also applies to the other. --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not as a policy matter, but as a discretionary decision . Although CAT does not apply directly to infoboxes, and the much-abused throwaway line from WP:BLPCAT, "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and statements", isn't terribly relevant either, I do think that the spirit of CATDEF urges us not to fill infoboxes with factoids that are relevant to a few articles in the subject area but not most. In some other discussion I likened this to adding a "brand of piano endorsed" parameter to pop musicians. Sure, some are Steinway artists and a few are Yamaha spokespeople, and that should go in some prominent place in the article, but the information is irrelevant to 95% of musical groups so what good does it do in an infobox? I think it's a fairer question to ask simply, policy matters aside, should we or should we not use infoboxes to describe the religion of contemporary American politicians? In this day and age (and probably in all), though it is a highly important political issue, it is not really one of the pertinent facts that people need to know upfront in that way in an encyclopedia article — not as a policy mandate, but as a reasonable way to organize articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. But only to a small, restricted subset of the declarations made in an infobox (i.e.; "sexual orientation", "religion"), not to all declarations made in an infobox (like "place of birth", "number of children"), as made clear by our BLP Policy, in the section on Wikipedia's categorization function. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes (Already decided by RfC): Per WP:LOCALCON this should be decided on a policy page. Which it already has. Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability." If Hillary Clinton wasn't running for president, it is likely that Wikipedia would not mention her religion at all. She is notable for being a lawyer. She is notable for being a first Lady. And a senator. And a secretary of state. And a presidential candidate. She is not notable for being a Methodist. Not only are there no sources that support the claim that Methodism is a defining characteristic of Hillary Clinton, there no sources that support the claim that Methodism is directly tied to Hillary Clinton's notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion must be opened on the appropriate page if you want to discuss global application of Guideline, Policy, or Village Pump consensus "at this (and other) Wikipedia pages".
All guidelines, policies, and central-community-consensus apply to all articles.
This appears to be about the Pump Policy consensus to remove the religion parameter from generic infoxboxes. The religion value will disappear from all articles unless it is re-added via custom parameter in exceptional circumstances, which I oppose here. Alsee (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course policies and guidelines apply throughout Wikipedia, but only when they say something that can apply. That's the issue here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Technically No... and Relevancy Applies leading to Keep Religion in Hillary's Infobox - I agree with Anythingyouwant, in that the WP:CAT article clearly and specifically refers ONLY to the categories at the end of the article. However, this is less relevant, compared to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes policy establishment. Reading over the RfC, I think it's pretty clear that the main objection people were having to the religion item within the infobox was with regards to individuals who had not said anything about their religion, such that the person's religion could be in dispute. Other strong arguments included questioning the RELEVANCY of religion for a particular person. For example, one person suggested renaming the religion parameter to 'religion_if_has_wp_weight'. This didn't happen, but it demonstrates the gist of what people were getting at.
So, with this in mind, it seems that the policy consensus is not that the religion must be the thing that DEFINES their notability... it's not that the religion must be the cause of their Wikipedia page, but rather that the religion must be RELEVANT to the person. It must be a feature of the person that is important to knowing about who they are, and how they relate to the things that they are notable for.
With this in mind, I would say that Hillary Clinton's religion is notable about her, that it has been discussed in news articles (I recall reading an article in recent months remarking how incredible it was that Hillary had become the most religious candidate left in the entire field, since she's normally considered less religious than any given republican candidate). Because her religion relates to politics, and because her religion has been commented about in a political context, and politics is her claim to relevancy, I would say Keep her religion in the Infobox. Fieari (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Reading over the RfC, I think it's pretty clear that the main objection people were having to the religion item within the infobox was with regards to individuals who had not said anything about their religion, such that the person's religion could be in dispute.
I think you reviewed the wrong RfC. I just reviewed the one concerning biographical infoboxes, and "that the person's religion could be in dispute" was simply not a reason for removing the |religion= field from general use. If that is the basis for your misinterpretation of policy and community consensus, I would ask that you revisit both and re-review. You said, it seems that the policy consensus is not that the religion must be the thing that DEFINES their notability... it's not that the religion must be the cause of their Wikipedia page, but rather that the religion must be RELEVANT to the person. Only the subject, in this case Clinton, can determine if "the religion is relevant to him/her", which has nothing to do with whether the restricted infobox field is activated for her, which is dependent on reliable sources conveying religion as a defining characteristic of her public notability. (Not to be confused with "she's a notable personage in the public spotlight, which therefore results in every aspect of her being written about, including religion", which you appear to have equated with "relevant to her notability".) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:CATDEF might not apply to infoboxes, but remove religion parameter per Template:Infobox person, which is the basis of all biography infoboxes. It says to include religion only if relevant and to refer to WP:BLPCAT, which says Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability and later goes onto say These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs. Hillary is not at all notable for being a Methodist, so it therefore isn't relevant enough to include. Being a president, presidential candidate, or even politician in general I should also add IS NOT IN ITSELF a reason to include religious affiliation in infobox. I personally would deprecate the "religion" parameter altogether since for the majority of biographies (regardless of occupations or personal affiliations), it isn't a key part of their notability. Such deprecation would also save people the trouble of having RFC's like this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Once this issue about interpretation of guidelines and policies is resolved, that ought to help us have a much simpler and briefer discussion about what to put in the infobox, and what not to put in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, the real purpose of this survey is to answer another, much more specific question: WP:BLPCAT says that "a central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article". (Struck out because I accidentally quoted the wrong page.) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC) In cases where we cannot add a religion category at the bottom of the page because religion is not a defining characteristic, can we work around that restriction by putting the religion in the infobox? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to work around a restriction if it's inapplicable. For example, the U.S. Constitution says that a person must be 35 years old to be president. In my opinion, it's not working around that restriction (or the spirit of that restriction) to say that a person can be Secretary of State even if less than 35 years old. Infoboxes and article categories are similar (just like presidents and Secretaries of State are similar), but still different rules can apply. Incidentally, the words you quote are not located in WP:BLPCAT.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • An editor above argues there is no reason to suppose that a rule that applies to one also applies to the other, which seems to ignore the key Wikipedia policy which states that what applies to one also applies to the other: These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation. Another editor suggests that such admonitions to Wikipedia editors, from one of our foundational policies, is merely a "throwaway line". I disagree; and after having reviewed the history behind the actual spirit of that policy, I could not disagree more strongly. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a throwaway line in the sense that it is an affirmation of intent, not an instruction that can be taken literally about what to do without generating some illogical outcomes, like equally forceful pronouncements such as ignore all rules, thou shalt not kill, or science applies equally to dogs, cats, and people. True, policies on Wikipedia apply everywhere, just like dogs, cats, and people are all subject to the rules of physics. That doesn't mean the same outcome in each case. People waving that banner carelessly have caused all kinds of mischief on the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
If your point is that any rule can be broken (see WP:IAR for example), that's a given, and doesn't really advance the discussion. To the extent that all of WP:BLP is just "an affirmation of intent, not an instruction that can be taken literally about what to do", it is still also a strongly enforced policy. So you and I will have to agree to disagree on the efficacy of waving the banner of concern for living people. Returning to this specific example, do you see an "illogical outcome" resulting from abiding by Wikipedia policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you please parse my sentence construction instead of misstating it? I'm saying that the throwaway line that "these principles" apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and infobox statements" within any Wikipedia page is just that. It is an affirmation of intent, not an instruction that can be taken literally. IAR is another such affirmation, but I mention that only for illustration and do not argue against BLP. There's no BLP concern here. How on earth does it harm Hillary Clinton to describe her religion in an infobox? Yes, I do see an illogical outcome resulting from misapplying Wikipedia policy, namely that we have a sticker on top of each presidential candidate's page that identifies their purported religion only where they make a fuss of it. That's not nearly as absurd as some of the other mischief that happens, but it does create a pointless inconsistency in how we present the information. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't misstated your sentence, Wikidemon, nor would I. I'm just responding in kind. Speaking plainly (can we try that?), yeah, it's a rule, not just an idea, that the principles being expressed in that little section about categories also apply to infoboxes. Literally. I'm of the opinion that, while all rules are to be applied with common sense, and are to be applied with the best interest of the Wikipedia project in mind, we don't get to arbitrarily dismiss inconvenient parts of policy as not to "be taken literally" at our choosing. Anyone who tries to parse that policy wording (as is happening elsewhere right now) in an effort to exempt the |religion= field from the same rules that apply to religion in other navigation boxes or categories, is likely to receive an in-kind response. If you weren't headed down that path, then all is well - moving on. You say there is no BLP concern here; and ask what harm it would do to use the restricted |religion= field in Clinton's article. To the first part, there is most certainly a violation of BLP policy if the religion field is used without meeting the requirements to use it. As for what harm? It may be that there is no real harm done in Clinton's case if we use the special field in her article, but the BLP policies weren't developed with just Hillary in mind, but for all living public figures. The baseline requirements (do NOT use the field unless X, Y and Z are all met -- and no, please, "only where they make a fuss of it" is not one of the requirements), may seem overly restrictive in the case of Clinton, but in many cases, these minimum requirements are necessary to prevent serious disruption and even harm. By allowing editors of the Clinton article to thumb their noses at the project-wide minimum requirements for activating the religion field when it is not appropriate, it does create a pointless inconsistency in how we present the information across similar biographical articles. WP:Infobox says the fields in an infobox should be consistent across every article using it, so I think we should strive for that. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
By its own wording that clause from BLPCAT is a statement of principle, not a statement of a rule. If whoever collectively wrote the BLPCAT section had meant for the rule to apply in the same way to categories, lists, navigation templates, and infoboxes, they would have said so by including them in the first paragraph of the section where the rule is laid out rather than adding a last paragraph that said the same principles applied. So either they didn't intend the same result in each case, or they were being sloppy and imprecise. That they didn't is not a matter of convenience or dismissing anything, it's a matter of logic which, hopefully, should conform to common sense. Take, for example, the very first sentence: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers". That is not completely true in the case of navigation templates and infoboxes, and utterly not the case for lists. It would be a mistake to extend BLP policy, for its own sake, to places where it does not apply, just for the purpose of following rules. If your whole point is that people should not ignore rules, thumb their nose at policy, etc., then we're just fine here, as including her religion within the infobox is not against policy. I 100% agree with you, though, about consistency and the WP:Infobox. I just think we should approach it from that direction, rather than wielding the hammer of a policy argument that has holes in it and and would, unfortunately, permit unwarranted exceptions in the case of politicians who do make a fuss over their religion as a matter of their notability as politicians, irrespective of the depth or sincerity of their religious convictions, like Ted Cruz or (to his chagrin, having been called Muslim) Obama. Infoboxes funciton much differently than categories and lists in this regard: a category or list with only two or three members would not be viable, whereas if we permit case-by-case exceptions for infoboxes you could end up with a field that is only used two or three places. I think it would make sense to say that no bio infoboxes should include a religion field unless religion is typically a significant part of the notability of the group of people for whom the infobox is written, in which case it may be included subject to BLP concerns. That's not the question asked in this RfC, though, so we're arguing an unnecessary issue about whether this issue is to be decided as a policy matter or as a discretionary one. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I consider my grasp of Wikipedia policy to be quite good, and I can wiki-lawyer with the best of them, but when you argue that a "clause" is a "principle" not a "rule", I find myself at a complete loss for a response. My method of striving to adhere to the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines, rather than looking for cracks in imprecise wording through which to squeeze, is inadequate here.
If whoever collectively wrote the BLPCAT section had meant for the rule to apply in the same way to categories, lists, navigation templates, and infoboxes, they would have said so...
They did: These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements that are based on religious beliefs — and if the suggestion is that a guideline can be ignored if it appears in one paragraph rather than another, I must disagree, just as I would disagree that it can be ignored if the wording was merely "sloppy".
It would be a mistake to extend BLP policy, for its own sake, to places where it does not apply...
Oh. Come. On. WP:BLPCAT is a section of BLP POLICY, which applies everywhere. Further, the very first sentence in the section in which BLPCAT appears repeats:
BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. Facepalm Facepalm
including her religion within the infobox is not against policy
Perhaps, perhaps not - which appears to be the real question here, despite this specific tangential RfC. Policy says we can include it in the restricted |religion= field if being a Methodist is a defining characteristic of her public notability. Are her religious beliefs the reason (or one of the reasons) she is famous? Would you be okay with putting "Methodist" in the lead, side by side with "First Lady", "Senator", "Secretary of State" and "Presidential Candidate"? Do reliable sources "commonly and consistently" refer to her as "Methodist Hillary Clinton" when they speak of her? If so, then you are correct that activating the reserved infobox field for Hillary Clinton would not be against policy.
I think it would make sense to say that no bio infoboxes should include a religion field unless religion is typically a significant part of the notability of the group of people for whom the infobox is written
That is exactly what was done here, and that is why the field was blanked in this article on Clinton, and other "biographical infoboxes". Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways. You're trying to pick out certain words of the policy applying to one thing, and then applying them by argument to something else. You can scold and facepalm all you want, but neither the wording nor the spirit of the policy support your position. If you want to look at what the words on the policy page say, they lay out a principle. The writers had a choice of simply including infoboxes, templates, and so on in the rule for categories, and they chose not to, instead making it a separate paragraph describing a principle. If you call it wikilawyering to look too closely at how the policy is written, and prefer the spirit of the policy instead, fine. It is not to harm living people, and mentioning the professed religion of a presidential candidate does not harm that candidate. As a discretionary matter, I don't think the field belongs in infoboxes at all that are for political candidates in contemporary America, and it should be deprecated across the board rather than subject to a tangential exercise of debating whether their notability as a politician is based on religion. Whether religion belongs in various other bio infoboxes is a broader question. But this RfC is not about the discretionary decision, but rather how policies and guidelines about categories apply to infoboxes. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic: WP:BLPCAT has a hatnote saying "See also: Wikiedia:Categorization of people; Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates; Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality; and Wikipedia:Eponymous overcategorization", and WP:BLPCAT later says "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates...." and so the question is whether the latter statement about "these principles" includes all the principles at the pages wikilinked in the hatnote. Are you saying "yes" to that? If so, is that because you think the hatnote accomplishes incorporation by reference?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
That is incomplete, and therefore potentially misleading. WP:BLPCAT begins by informing the reader about the principles which apply to WP:CAT, which is the topic of your RfC. Here is the WP:BLPCAT policy section in full:
Categories, lists and navigation templates
See also: Wikipedia:Categorization of people; Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates; Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality; and Wikipedia:Eponymous overcategorization

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation. This policy does not limit the use of administrative categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other normal editor activities.
Note the header of this policy section - it starts with the word "Categories". Note the first word of this policy section is "Category" (linked to WP:CAT). Note that the most relevant sentence in the very first paragraph of this policy begins with the word "Categories", when instructing you that "religion" shouldn't be used, and this same policy also makes clear that these principles apply to infobox fields. I never mentioned hatnotes, and neither did your RfC question. (I find it odd that you would claim it did.) Would you care to reword your RfC to elicit comment on a different question? Your present RfC asked me "Do guidelines and policies about Wikipedia's categorization function ... apply to declarations made in the infobox?" And my response was (short version): In the limited case covered by WP:BLPCAT, yes (with an implied "'duh, it states so' included). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the RFC question is okay. You write, "WP:BLPCAT begins by informing the reader about the principles which apply to WP:CAT". I don't agree. It informs the reader about some categorization principles, not all, and it certainly does not say that the whole of WP:CATDEF applies to infoboxes, which you seem to think it does, and I'm just trying to understand why you think so. You have previously argued that Wikipedia categorization policies and guidelines sometimes bar use of religion in the infobox even if the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources, and I disagree with you about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Your "some, not all" response isn't necessary, as I never implied "all". The first sentence starts with the word wikilinked to WP:CAT, and that is what the policy refers to. Now you raise "CATDEF", and I don't think I mentioned that at all. Why does your question keep changing? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
You have previously argued that Wikipedia categorization policies and guidelines sometimes bar use of religion in the infobox even if the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources
No; I have not. Wikipedia policy is to exclude "religion" from Cats & IB fields, unless additional (over and above those required for most other Cats & Fields) requirements are met. Those additional requirements include self-identification, in direct speech, and with regard to the subject's public notability, the religious beliefs must also be a defining characteristic. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not changed the RFC question at all, so the question does not keep changing, IMHO. WP:CATDEF is part of WP:Category so when you mention the latter that includes the former. You say that you did not mention CATDEF, but you have done so indirectly by mentioning WP:Category, and you have also mentioned WP:CATDEF directly, for example here:

This quote also shows (or seems to show) that the language in WP:BLPCAT about relevancy to notability is ambiguous without combining WP:BLPCAT with WP:CATDEF, but I don't think WP:CATDEF applies in that way to WP:BLPCAT or else WP:BLPCAT would have said so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The language is only ambiguous if you are looking for a specific rule that covers the exact situation found on this one particular page. If instead you read the reasoning behind the policies, guidelines, RfCs and help pages, it becomes clear that there is an overwhelming Wikipedia-wide consensus against defining most US politician's religion with one-or-two-word entries anywhere on the page. The RfC on the policy page was especially clear about this. In fact, the principles apply to the body of the article as well, should anyone try to insert something like "religion: Methodist" with no further details or explanations (in the article body, the way to fix such a thing would be expansion, not removal). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting to restore religion to this infobox but remove all of the later elaboration about her religion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I see the cause of your confusion. I asked why your question keeps changing. Previously, I also asked you if you wanted to change your RfC question. At no time did I ask why your RfC question keeps changing, yet that's the imaginary question you answered? And for future reference, when I refer to WP:CAT, I mean the whole policy page; when I refer to WP:CATDEF, I mean that specific section of policy. I don't mention one by indirectly mentioning another; I prefer to say what is meant. With that in mind, is there a specific question I can answer? (As for what WP:BLPCAT applies to, that was explained above in the post dated 18:39, 23 May 2016.) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
In this discussion, I've posed some questions and you've posed some questions, and I think we've both made good faith efforts to respond. Maybe it's best if we just kick back and let the RFC run its course. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2016

Suggestion to remove to two remarks.

In the 3rd sentence of the 4th paragraph of the opening summary, two uncited phrases in parenthesis exist. These appear to add commentary and diminish the neutrality of the sentence. The phrases follow:

Please remove "(which she later regretted)"

Please remove "(which she later commended)"

Thumbwave (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Thumbwave

 Not done - For two reasons: First, I have seen that content go in and out at least once, so it's known to be controversial. Per the discretionary sanctions in force at this article (see the top of this page), such edits may not be made without prior consensus on this page. And, your username is now autoconfirmed, so you do not need to submit semi-protected edit requests. If you wish to pursue this, I would suggest you start a separate thread here for the sake of organization, using the "New section" link at the top of the page. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

de facto presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party

Isn't she the de facto presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party? Why isn't that included in the first paragraph? 2605:6000:E8DA:8600:3D00:A12A:6D1C:AEFD (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Because while expected, it isn't fact yet. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. Tarl N. (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Untrue. It's a fact that she is the presumptive nominee, mainstream media have been calling her that for a couple of months, and there is no reason Wikipedia can't say that, and in wikivoice. As, for example, in the first sentence of Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
She called herself that for a while, but reliable sources did not pick it up. TFD (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I've heard the media call her the "likely" nominee, but not the presumptive one. Googling "Clinton presumptive" seems to partially confirm this (some use the term, but it's not ubiquitous) and apparently she's refrained from calling herself that ([1]). The media didn't start using that term for Trump until the challengers dropped out. I'd think it UNDUE to call her the presumptive nominee at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The general expectation is that the major media outlets will declare her the presumptive nominee sometime after 8 pm on June 7, once the New Jersey primary has been called. See this FiveThirtyEight piece, for example. This article should wait until then. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Right, because she does not yet have the required number of delegates, although it is apparent she will."Presumptive" is used when that threshold is crossed, probably with NJ. But she's not then called the nominee - as Trump shouldn't be either - until their conventions ib fact nominate them. Tvoz/talk 06:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Audio file for name

HenryMP02 you do not own the article. Your edit regarding the audio file seems entirely unnecessary and you are failing to follow WP:BRD. FWIW, it's unnecessary over on Trump's article too. Come discuss your edits and get consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I support getting rid of the IPA stuff here in this BLP (very few people understand it), and instead just using the audio file, as at the Donald Trump article. If there is a desire to keep the IPA stuff somewhere then perhaps it could go at the audio file's description section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Honestly do we need either of them? I guess Rodham's pronunciation might not be obvious to a non-Native speaker... but seems unnecessary. She's not Reince Priebus. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
We could just replace the IPA stuff with a modest little wikilink saying "pronunciation" which could take people to the audio file (perhaps where the IPA stuff could go too). Even for English speakers, Rodham could misfire (see, e.g., Bellingham (surname)). What do you say, User:Wasted Time R? Alternatively we could delete "Rodham" everywhere in the BLP. 😄Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Threatening other editors in the edit summary when you add something new is not cool, HenryMp02. I don't think the audio file is necessary, but it doesn't do any harm to have it. Any attempt, however, to remove the IPA stuff will be met with vigorous objection. That's standard across the entire project. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean to sap anyone's vigor, but IPA is not used in a vast number of BLPs. See for example, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton where the choice to omit it was the result of deliberate discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. IPA is used whenever there is the slightest doubt about pronunciation, on BLPs and beyond. George Bush and Bill Clinton would not seem to be problem names, but Rodham certainly is. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines say it is fine to remove IPA from the lead even when there's a question about pronunciation. Per WP:PRON, phonetic transcriptions in the lead are not always the best way to render pronunciation. Other options described by WP:PRON are to link to the corresponding entry in Wiktionary, or to include an audio file together with the transcription, or to put the transcription in a footnote like at Greenwich Village.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRON says it is okay to remove the IPA in some instances, but it doesn't suggest doing so. Rather it advocates strongly for its inclusion. IPA is still the preferred method because of its universal and international support (despite your bizarre claim "very few people understand it", which presumably is a US-centric claim). Like I said before, I have no objection to the inclusion of an audio file (I have recorded some myself), but if an audio file is necessary then a good argument can be made that IPA is also necessary. It's difficult to understand why you would wish to argue for the removal of something universally useful. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Including the full IPA in the lead, rather than in a footnote, is distracting. We can instead follow one of the suggestions at WP:PRON like including an audio file together with the IPA transcription in a footnote, or putting the IPA transcription in a footnote without an audio file like at Greenwich Village. Either way would be less distracting, and neither way would completely remove the IPA stuff. The infobox also has a pronunciation field if people would prefer that way to a footnote. "[M]ost people are unfamiliar with the rather cryptic International Phonetic Alphabet".[2] If people want to put lots of cryptic stuff in the lead, then we could do that, but I disagree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but your opinion of IPA doesn't make any sense at all. It's been a world standard for over a century, despite what is said by the author of that obscure book you linked to. On Wikipedia, it's used by tens of thousands of articles in its usual place in the lede. I don't understand why you find it "distracting" at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The Standard Model has also been prevalent for many decades, but that doesn't mean many people understand it. We are asking readers to start out at this article by reading what more than 95% of them will perceive as gibberish. But if that's what you want, it's okay with me, since I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton anyway. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope y'all don't mind if I sit this discussion out. I reverted only because the addition did not seem to have consensus and other editors had objected. I don't have an opinion either way whether there should be an audio guide. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You might think everyone knows how to say "Barack Obama" by now, but the article on him starts with both a sound file and IPA pronunciation of his name. That's because we write for the broadest possible audience. I see no good reason not to have both in this article. Jonathunder (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree we should have both.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Which is exactly what I have been saying. It's just that you want to move it into a footnote, instead of where it usually goes. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

Add that she has now reached the number of needed delegates to be the democratic primary on June 6th, 2016 Dyl1G (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Looks like you are autoconfirmed. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_35&oldid=747347219"