Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Political Compass rating

My edit was reverted for disingenuous reasons (the user stated "no reason given" when I provided three within the short space afforded to wiki editors). In short, Political Compass is an unreliable source for measuring candidates' placement on the political spectrum. More specifically:

1) The 2016 rating page is bizarre in it how it talks about the candidates. See for instance: "the Democratic establishment would prefer Hillary to lose the presidency than Sanders to win it". And what the hell is this?: "Considering the cosy relationship that the Clintons and Trump have enjoyed until almost yesterday (reflected by Trump’s generous support for both Hillary’s senatorial campaigns and the Clinton Foundation) the mercurial Donald's differences may be less than they presently appear. Is it beyond all possibility that a Trump 'bi-partisan' presidency might include a role for his old friend Hillary?" So they're biased, they throw bizarre speculation into their rating and ramble on about things that have nothing to do with the candidates' stated positions.

2) PC's description that "Like Sanders — and unlike Clinton — Trump supported a decent minimum wage from the start, wants free education in state universities, has supported universal health care, consistently opposed the Transpacific Partnership Agreement and wants more bank regulation" is completely false (both for Trump's and HRC's stated positions) and shows that PC has not looked at the candidates' platform at all. The three sentences that I have quoted are PC's only mentions of HRC on that 2016 page and they're all bizarre and/or totally false. If that's what their rating is based on, it has no business being cited on wikipedia.

3) PC does not show how it got these results. If you were to actually answer PC's quiz with what amounts to HRC's positions, you get a drastically different rating.

4) HRC's 2008 PC rating is drastically different from her 2016 rating despite her platform being nearly the same. If anything, her 2016 platform is by all accounts further to the left, yet PC places her far far to the right of where she was in 2008.

5) HRC's placement on the 2016 chart puts her further to the right than John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee! There is absolutely zero way that one could get that result by answering PC's quiz with these candidates' stated positions. The PC rating is bunk. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to read a bit better. I never said you gave no reason for deleting the link to Political Compass. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I took it out again. Political compass is effectively a one-man operation by a political journalist, with no transparency. It does not meet the requirements for WP:RS, and this has been discussed before. Tarl N. (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Since I was just informed that I will be sanctioned if I don't put that material back in, allow me to quote from WP:BLP

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

My understanding of that quote is that the material, which is defamatory and not high-quality, must be removed immediately. Tarl N. (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

How is a political compass rating defamatory? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It portrays her as having political position which is at odds with public persona. Whether you regard that as defamatory or not, I refer you to the above quote: whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. Either way, Political compass is not a reliable source, it's effectively a blog. It's not reviewed, it's not published, it's one reporter's opinion that he arrived at by means not known to the public. It cannot be part of a WP:BLP as a standalone reference. Tarl N. (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not remotely defamatory. And even if it's a blog, we've attributed the material to the blog, per WP:SPS and WP:BIASED. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I suspect Hillary might disagree with you. However, I again refer you to the WP:BLP quote: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. .Per WP:BLOGS, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people. That's what was being done here. Tarl N. (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: You raise a good point about BLOGS. But that means everything in that section must go, doesn't it? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Crowdpac probably should go, I have no idea what they are. I jumped on Political compass because it had been the target of earlier arguments, and knew it was specifically the kind of source we need to exclude (both because of the nature of the source and its off-the-wall conclusions). Most of the other references seem to be published (e.g., the National Journal sentence cites an NBC report), and we're quoting where they are published. The ADA and ACU references are direct, but they are well-known organizations rather than a single person self-publisher. I'd feel happier if we could find published references citing their conclusions, rather than quoting them directly, but I'm not as worried about those citations. Tarl N. (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel like there might be a larger discussion to have here regarding political alignment sections and BLOGS on politician pages. I agree Crowdpac should go if PoliticalCompass goes. On The Issues seems like it should go too for the same reasons, even if not just a single author. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with PC isn't that it's a blog. I lay out five problems with the use of PC in this article. Only if the same problems apply (or similarly bad errors) to other websites, should they be dropped in my opinion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the issue here is the site policy laid out in WP:BLOGS. Your critiques of the source are separate. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, and not useful information. It's questionable whether we should be filling politician articles with one-dimensional ratings that assess how liberal or conservative they supposedly are, much less outlier ratings. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It's possible to rate where politicians stand on the political spectrum (political science studies make use of those kinds of ratings, for example). The problem with PC is that its rating is just nonsense. PC doesn't even know what the candidates' policies are, so how can the website place the candidates on the political spectrum? Each of these ratings websites have to be judged as to individual reliability. PC clearly fails in terms of reliability, I don't know about the others. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

So why just PC? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I included Political Compass in this section because even though it's idiosyncratic to a fault, it uses two dimensions and it brings a global perspective that it almost always missing from U.S. political discussions. Crowdpac is valuable because it incorporates political contributions into its data analysis, something I haven't seen elsewhere. It's been used by FiveThirtyEight, among others. The idea raised above that any of these inclusions are BLP issues is misguided. There will always multiple, sometimes contradictory interpretations of the views and actions of anyone who runs for or holds high office. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue isn't Political Compass' idiosyncratic conclusions (although they attract controversy), but the nature of the site. It's a one-person, unreviewed, self-published site. Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY, see both WP:QS and WP:BLOGS. Tarl N. (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

New article and new content needed

As Wikipedia contributors, we should all be disappointed in ourselves for failing to keep up with current events. I'm shocked by the fact that not only does this article fail to mention any of the fallout since former Secret Service Agent Gary Byrne released his best selling booking Crisis of Character about Hillary Clinton, Mr. Byrne and his book are not even mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.

Gary Byrne is currently one of the top best-selling authors on Amazon. [http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books/zgbs/books/283155] Yet, not only do we fail to mention him in this article-- the subject of his leading best-selling work, we have not even created an article about him and his book. Instead, the Gary Byrne article is linked to some obscure, retired Australian soccer player.

I am still waiting on my copy of Crisis of Character to arrive by mail; so I'm holding off on making current event updates to Hillary Clinton-related articles at the moment. However, if anyone has a copy of the book on hand, I think his/her contributions are needed urgently.JoeM (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Amazon best seller ranking is not a good indicator of reliability or notability. Do other reliable sources cite this book in the context of Hillary Clinton? If so, then perhaps it would be worth mentioning.- MrX 17:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Do a Google search for Gary Byrne or turn on the news. The book is VERY notable. Media sources are even turning to him for his insight into the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch meeting. [1] JoeM (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of it. His book needs to be taken with a mountain of salt. And Breitbart as a source? Lol. They are a partisan source, and not reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the fact that you link to Breitbart to support your claims pretty much establishes that this is not a reliable source. Lots of stuff has been written about Clinton. Most of it crap. I see no reason to include this source. And it would definitely violate WP:BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course the liberal media is starting to tear him apart-- because of the fact Gary Byrne and his book are very notable. JoeM (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Whenever someone starts ranting about "liberal media", they've pretty much just shot their credibility. The book cannot be used as a source in this article - it's not reliable and actually not all that notable either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Besides, he's been discredited by the Association of Former Agents of the United States Secret Service, not the so-called "liberal media". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I did a Google search. It seems that either there is a massive conspiracy by the main stream media to ignore it, or it is being ignored because the author lacks credibility [2] [3]. By the way, Breitbart is not regarded as a reliable source for much of anything other than their own opinion. - MrX 18:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec)The Gary Byrne book is a good example of the sort of thing that fails the WP:Reliable sources test on Wikipedia. If you look at the Center Street Books website, who published the book, their politics list all tends towards one direction. This Politico piece got a lot of attention for revealing that "The author of a new tell-all book about Hillary Clinton could never have seen any of what he claims — he was too low-ranking — say several high-level members of Secret Service presidential details, including the president of the Association of Former Agents of the United States Secret Service." For other reactions to the book, see this WaPo roundup. The fact that it's best-selling doesn't mean much – tell-all type books often are. That doesn't mean they get used as sources here. However, I have added it to the List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton article, so it will not go completely unmentioned on WP. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you've added it to the List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton, can you go ahead and start the articles about his book and about Mr. Byrne himself? I know Hillary fans are working around the clock to discredit the book as a reliable source; but you have do admit, given it's indisputable commercial success, it warrants article coverage. JoeM (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done → Crisis of Character. Happy editing!- MrX 18:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

FBI interview

This does not belong in this article, it belongs in the "emails controversy" article. It most certainly does NOT belong in the lede. And it could potentially be a WP:BLP vio. Please get consensus for inclusion first (per WP:BLP).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree and I reverted the re-insertion. @♥Golf:, please do not re-add, keeping in mind that this article is under active arbitration, with WP:1RR being enforced. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought the information I added was very pertinent. It was plainly just a simple fact. The FBI interview is being covered by every major news organization in the nation and abroad as well. The result of the interview could either lead to an exoneration of Mrs. Clinton or an indictment and possible prison time. I won't revert again as I believe Hillary will be announcing next week that she is withdrawing from the 2016 Presidential election. My edit, and a whole lot more related to it, will eventually be included in the article anyway. --♥Golf (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the key here is WP:NOTNEWS, under the enduring notability clause. Whatever the result of the email controversy, ten years from now, the FBI interview this week would not be notable. At least not unless something notable comes out of it, which we haven't seen yet - right now, the notability is simply that it occurred. Tarl N. (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Lol Hillary's not gonna withdraw. This article should include her eventual exoneration or indictment, whichever happens. All the little steps in between then and now aren't relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Fun Fact: The mean average time required to make an American confess to something in a way that convinces a jury they knew what they did was wrong is 16 hours (in 2004). The time required to fly from one coast of America to the other, fly back because you forgot your wallet and fly back again is about 3.5 hours (in 1974). Adjusted for 2016 hours and multiplied by the time it takes the average American to understood how this is even remotely scandalous (let alone criminal), Clinton wasn't there for nearly long enough to matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Another Hillary Clinton Controversy

During Clinton's 2000 Senate Election, Hillary Clinton allegedly called Bill Clinton's campaign manager Paul Fray a "fucking Jew bastard" in 1974. The alleged incident was widely reported at the time, and yet it isn't mentioned in the wikipedia pages.

Citations:

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jul/18/uselections2000.usa
• http://www.nationalreview.com/article/220129/hillarys-slur-jonah-goldberg
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1349202/Clinton-leaps-to-Hillarys-defence-over-Jewish-slur.html
• http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jul/17/news/mn-54381
• http://www.salon.com/2000/07/17/trail_mix_100/

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Note the "alleged". The claim came 26 years after the alleged event, by someone trying to influence an election in a jewish-sensitive district. The source, a book written by a former National Enquirer reporter (yes, that's a slur), is hardly WP:RS. In looking at the published reports, this seems to be more about Jerry Oppenheimer and his book than either of the Clintons. Since the only sources are a flurry of articles written in mid-July 2000, and nothing since then, common sense would suggest this was a non-event, existing only in Oppenheimer's imagination. It might belong in an article about him, if it exists. Tarl N. (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I added the information to the Jerry Oppenheimer page. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed here in the past, see for example Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 8#FAC continuing discussion and Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 14#State of the Union, Jerry Oppenheimer. The conclusion has always been that this is too weakly sourced and that it's exactly the kind of thing that WP:BLP rules say should be kept out. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• I concur. This amounts to "I heard a rumor that someone else once heard a rumor". It is, of course, always suspicious when something supposedly happens on a certain date and there is no documentation, and nobody in the world knows anything about it ten years after that date, fifteen years after that date, twenty years after that date, even twenty-five years after that date. There is a reason the statute of limitations for lawsuits on matters like these is typically no more than a few years - because memories of events change and become colored by emotions over time. bd2412 T 14:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If this story was still alive, there might be a reason to include it but the New York Times editorial board at the time ruled it was untrue and it was forgotten. "Balancing aspects" therefore says it should not be included, although it might be relevant to an article about the Senate campaign. TFD (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it might be mentioned in the Senate campaign article. It shows that despite these allegations, Clinton still won in the 2000 election. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be mentioned anywhere - not here and not in the Senate campaign article. (Do we really mention all the things that WEREN'T factors, in an article about a campaign?) This is an obscure, unsupported, widely discredited meme and does not deserve to be dignified at Wikipedia - not even with a denial. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course this should not be included anywhere. Tvoz/talk 02:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur. RS is essential but insufficient by itself, per WP:ONUS. The arguments against far outweigh the RS provided in the links. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The best treatment of this claim is in the Bernstein bio. You can read it here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP suitability

Volunteer Marek has reverted my edit [4] as "not suitable for BLP" [5]. I would like to know how this is not suitable for BLP? For one thing, this is not controversial. This was prominently in the press a month or two ago. It surfaced just prior to her campaign, and has come up from time to time depending on the news cycle. And even if it were controversial I have provided three sources that back up what I wrote. And, I can find more sources. This is and has been an ongoing issue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Op-ed pieces are not suitable for BLPs. Especially during a presidential campaign when the subject of the BLP is one of the candidates.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We have a separate page about the Foundation. So, it might be included there, but I think it does not belong even there as uninformative claims that already were mentioned on the page about the Foundation [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes I'm really not understanding "uninformative claims" - can you elaborate? Also, I'm not seeing how these sources are OP-ed pieces.

In any case, where does it say that OP-ed pieces are unsuitable for BLPs when they are written by highly experienced journalists in mainstream newspapers that are considered to be reliable sources? Also, these are top tier reliable sources. Additionally, there is nothing in WP:BLP that supports that User:Volunteer Marek's claim that Op-ed pieces are not suitable for BLPs - presidential campaign or not. However, I am not seeing that these are Op-Ed pieces.

And, I don't like being accused of cherry picked sources, as happened with this revert [7]. I don't think it is appropriate to attribute motivations to common everyday editing. Also, I have been an editor on Wikipedia for 7 years, and nefarious motivations are not in my tool kit. Editors (such as yourself) are entitled to claim POV or WP:OR if they wish - that is addressing the editing. Also - this is not WP:OR by any means. Nor is it WP:NPOV. If an editor wishes to write a better summation by copy editing what I wrote feel free. In any case, what I wrote reflects what is in the articles.

I am not trying to denigrate Mrs. Clinton in any way. Full disclosure - I voted for Mrs. Clinton in the primary. I am hoping she will be the next president. I am just trying to add a piece of news that has not shown up in either article. Also, my blurb is small potatoes compared to what she is unfortunately having to deal with.

I would like to see if a consensus develops here, one way or the other.

I'm noticing that one of my references - which was supposed to be an NYT article - is not in the blurb that I posted in this article [8]. I am not sure what happened, and it could be that I didn't add it. All I see is <ef name=hunt/>. I apologize for this because it seems to be my oversight - I don't see any evidence that I added this anywhere in either article. If this is what is leading to the assessment of NPOV and WP:OR, then I apologize - it was my oversight. This NYT ref does not appear to be "OP-ed" (at least to me). I am going to add it with a copy of the removed material here - with all three refs:

A little before and during Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign, the media has been asking questions about possible inherent Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, should Mrs. Clinton win the presidency. In 2016, she has responded with, “the answer is transparency ” and "we’ll cross that bridge if and when we come to it" emphasizing the Foundation's "overwhelming disclosure" of donors' identification.

References

No opinion on the substance, but I find "Mrs. Clinton" to be an incredibly archaic and unsuitable form to address her in this context. There is no "Mr. Clinton" in Bill Clinton, no "Mr. Reagan" in Ronald Reagan, no "Mr. Bush" in George W. Bush, outside of literal quotes. Also see MOS:SURNAME. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz - No problem. It is embarrassingly archaic now that this has been pointed out. Thanks for the feedback. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's presidential season, and she's one of the candidates. There have been literally tens of thousands of op-ed pieces written about her or stuff related to her. Unless some op-ed piece is notable *on its own*, or where the scope of coverage is just overwhelming, we just can't include'em all. And if we were to start including some then it'd degenerate into cherry picking. Standards for BLPs are higher.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, thanks for saying this. It makes a lot of sense. You are right - common sense has to apply here or there would be an overwhelming amount of material - degenerating into cherry picking. And I didn't realize this. Kudos to all the editors that have taken on the job of curating these articles - keep up the good work! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No mention of Hilary's current faith: NPOV violation city!

As of right now the article has no mention of Clinton's current faith! As Trump's article has a large and prominent section about his religious views, this omission represents highly partisan coverage against Clinton.

It's understanable and respectable that certain editors may want to downplay the role of religion in public life. Yet while several sources assert religion is now less important in US politics than it used to be, it's undeniable that being known as religious is still a vote winner in the 2016 presidential race. For example per a 2016 Pew article: "a new Pew Research Center survey finds that being an atheist remains one of the biggest liabilities that a presidential candidate can have." And per a great many sources, Hilary's "Christian faith is undeniably strong"

There's absolutely no encyclopaedic reason to keep out mention of Hilary's Christianity,which at least one professor has said plays a major role in informing her politics. To do so while retaining the large religion section at Trump's article would be grossly partisan. Per WP:NPOV, please do not remove the Religious views section that is soon to be added to Hilary's article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: You are under the mistaken impression that the current article does not mention the role of religion in Hillary's life. It does, in five different places:

• She was raised in a United Methodist family, ...
• Rodham's early political development was shaped most by her high school history teacher (like her father, a fervent anti-communist), who introduced her to Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative, and by her Methodist youth minister (like her mother, concerned with issues of social justice), with whom she saw, and afterwards briefly met, civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. at a 1962 speech in Chicago's Orchestra Hall.[19]
• Their wedding took place on October 11, 1975, in a Methodist ceremony in their living room.[73]
• From the time she came to Washington, she also found refuge in a prayer group of The Fellowship that featured many wives of conservative Washington figures.[146][147]
• Triggered in part by the death of her father in April 1993, she publicly sought to find a synthesis of Methodist teachings, liberal religious political philosophy, and Tikkun editor Michael Lerner's "politics of meaning" to overcome what she saw as America's "sleeping sickness of the soul"; that would lead to a willingness "to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the twentieth century, moving into a new millennium."[148][149]

These are chronologically integrated into the article, to show how her religious views have actually informed her life and her actions. I believe this is a better way than having a separate section that repeatedly quotes one New York Times story over and over. If in fact she has been more open about her religious feelings in the 2016 campaign than in previous campaigns, then a brief mention of that in the "2016 presidential campaign" section, with that NYT story cited once, should suffice. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I meant no mention of her current religion as in no mention of what religion she has right now. Not one of the prior mentions identifies her faith right now. For several, like the wedding, similar observations could even be made of a self described "cultural christian" like the atheist editor Richard Dawkins. Taking comfort in a prayer group could be for social reasons, such as liking to be with compassionate people (as some but not all prayer groups are.) Even her desire to synthesise various religious ideas to address the "sickness of the soul" doesn't necessary imply real religion. About 95% of studies on the subject find religion has minor but positive pro social effects, most top tier social scientists argue along these lines, that's why even atheist politicians often favour and support religion even in relatively secular countries, when much of the middle class slates them for it.

Even if the prior mentions you highlight did imply true faith, they are buried away in other sections where many readers won't notice, in stark contrast to Trump. I don't really want to get into a long debate on the religious aspects of this. The main reason we need the section is to avoid gross anti Clinton partisanship, unless we also remove the religion section for Trump. Id really struggle to accept that any politically aware objective person would not see this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You are operating under another false assumption, which is that this article has to look like, or be comparable to, the Donald Trump article. It does not, any more than it has to be like the Bernie Sanders article, the Barack Obama article, the John Edwards article, the Rick Lazio article, the Rudy Giuliani article, or anyone else that she's ever been in political competition with. Or like the John Kerry article, the Condi Rice article, the Colin Powell article, the Elizabeth Warren article, the Michelle Obama article, the Laura Bush article, or anyone else that she has ever held a similar office or role to. As someone who has worked on political articles here for 11 years, I can tell you that attempting any of that is the quick way to WP madness. This article has to be the best it can be, with the structure and approach that makes the best sense for it, and let the contributors to other articles worry about how those articles can be made the best for those subjects. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur with the WP madness thing after only 3 years. And it doesn't just apply to political articles. I haven't read every word of WP:NPOV, but I'm not aware that it says anything about inter-article consistency or parity. If you are, FeydHuxtable, I would be interested to read it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I mostly concur with the WP madness point too. I do not agree Wasted Time is correct in their assumptions about my assumptions. Im not suggesting we closely model this article on any other politician. I do think we should follow the first sentence of WP:NPOV: "...which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". Per the undisputed fact that open religiousity is still helpful for winning presidential elections, the various points Reliable Sourcess have made about Clinton's deep christian faith seem undeniably significant and need to be in the article. (There's several others reasons for considering her religous views significant too, but let's not over complicate this.) The prior mentions buried in the article were just about specific incidents, they didn't give the reader any general feel for the deep influence Christianity has had on Clinton's life. IMO even without the Trump issue, it would be unencyclopedia not to include the info. It doesn't directly say this in any guideline Im aware of, but it's not unreasonable to prefer the Wikipedia to be relatively neutral on world shaping events like the US presidential election. So as Trump's article prominently mentions his religous views, to his clear elctorial benefit, we ought not display "editorial bias" against doing the same on Clinton's. FeydHuxtable (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I am inclined to agree that there could be a more substantial consolidated discussion of the subject's religiosity. bd2412 T 02:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What are her religious views? She belongs to a church that opposes capital punishment, abortion and same sex marriage yet she supports all three. Does she believe the creation story was factual or that we might be living in the last days? I can find no sources on this and the fact that mainstream sources say little about her religious views is a reason that we do not need more extensive coverage. TFD (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary and WikiLeaks

(moved from my talk page)

I see that you keep putting expansion tags on the WikiLeaks material in the main Hillary article. I hope you are aware that there are two long paragraphs on that matter in the Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State detail article (see towards the end of the "Regional issues and travels: 2010" section). I didn't put more in the main article because, for better or worse, most sources that review her whole time as secretary don't give the WikiLeaks matter a lot of attention. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The appropriate place for this discussion is the article talk page. I am rarely active on politician's pages, but the lack of coverage was so glaring I thought the tag was warranted, so I put on _one_ tag and restored it after it was removed without being addressed, and with no explanation at all. Any such unexplained removal is, of course, not appropriate.

Spying_on_United_Nations_leaders_by_United_States_diplomats certainly seems to be a big story, worthy of mention in the main article, and is a story which the article you link to links to. Yet Hillary Clinton doesn't even contain the word 'spy' or any variation thereof!

As I said, "Article (even w/Kay's addition) doesn't even touch on the impact of the leak *on* Clinton (or her Department)." You claim to know what's in "most sources that review her whole time as secretary". What sources are you referring to that you know well enough make that claim?--Elvey^(t•c) 07:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

For example, the article uses five retrospective news stories published at the end of her tenure:

• Parnass, Sarah; Hughes, Dana (December 23, 2012). "Departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Leaves Behind a Legacy of Firsts". ABC News.
• Richter, Paul (January 28, 2013). "Hillary Clinton's legacy at State: Splendid but not spectacular". Los Angeles Times.
• Packer, George (February 11, 2013). "Long Engagements". The New Yorker.
• Myers, Steven Lee (July 1, 2012). "Last Tour of the Rock-Star Diplomat". The New York Times Magazine.
• Gordon, Michael R.; Landler, Mark (February 3, 2013). "Backstage Glimpses of Clinton as Dogged Diplomat, Win or Lose". The New York Times.

As far as I can tell from quick searches, none of them mention the WikiLeaks business.

Now, there did used to be a little more in this main article than there is now. If look at this March 2013 version you'll see this text:

In late November 2010, Clinton led the U.S. damage control effort after WikiLeaks released confidential State Department cables containing blunt statements and assessments by U.S. and foreign diplomats.[302][303] A few of the cables released by WikiLeaks concerned Clinton directly: they revealed that directions to members of the foreign service, written by the CIA, had gone out in 2009 under her (systematically attached) name to gather biometric and other personal details on foreign diplomats, including officials of the United Nations and U.S. allies.[304][305][306]

Would restoration of this text satisfy you? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You DrKay shouldn't have stealth-removed the tag I added. If you can acknowledge that you DrKay removed the tag without addressing it in any way, and add text that addresses the impact of the leak on Clinton (and her Department), I'd appreciate it. The text you quote is rife with euphemisms, however. The word spying is missing, and we have "other personal details" rather than specifics. Again, the impact of the leak on Clinton (and her Department) should be covered. Can you please state clearly whether you accept that or not? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: I did not remove the tag, stealthily or otherwise. The first tag was removed by DrKay with this edit, then you put the tag back in and it is still there. As for the wording of the previous text, I could adjust that to include "spying" and a few more details on the information collected. But as for the impact of the leak on Clinton and her Department, what do you want said? I have the impression that when the Arab Spring began a few months later, everyone in State became consumed with those problems and the WikiLeaks matter faded in importance. Do you have some sources you can point to for what you want included? Wasted Time R (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry. I've struck part of my post above. Sounds good. I don't actually have any sources in mind. Do you think that negates the need for text that addresses the impact of the leak on Clinton (and her Department)? I don't. Would you please edit the article as you've proposed to do, per our discussions so far before replying? I've asked you twice if you think if the impact of the leak on Clinton (and her Department) should be covered. --Elvey^(t•c) 03:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(Spinning of) Comey's statement

This edit restored content to the effect that Comey stated that the "small number" of emails that contained classified markings "were not properly marked as such". The sources don't support that claim.CFredkin (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually that edit removed content which is necessary for NPOV in a BLP. As to what the source says:

"Comey said three emails had “portion markings” on them indicating that they were classified, but they were not properly marked and therefore could have been missed by Clinton."

So it's pretty much straight from the source. Which has been pointed out to you, but which you chose to ignore.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. This is the first time I've seen that sentence. I agree that it supports the content and will self-revert.CFredkin (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but what source are we talking about? That sentence appears in Comey's statement? Bullshit. The quote is from an article that merely reports on hearsay from someone who's hardly neutral- a spokesperson for State. That spokesperson says something - that Comey "said the emails were marked as classified with the letter “C”" that I think is very likely to be false for one of the emails-as it was given the classification SECRET, for which the correct letter is "S". For us to report in wikipedia's voice that "they were not properly marked as such" would require consensus from multiple reliable sources. Comey's statement is the most reliable, neutral source around for these matters; we should rely on it. --Elvey^(t•c) 04:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed conclusion to Clinton email controversy

This is what I propose to Clinton's email controversy.

Clinton maintained that she did not send or receive any confidential emails from her personal server. In a Democratic debate with Bernie Sanders on February 4, 2016, Clinton said, “I never sent or received any classified material." In a Meet the Press interview, Clinton said, “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now, I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified." On July 2, 2016, Clinton stated: “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now, I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified."

On July 5, 2016, the FBI concluded its investigation. FBI director James Comey read his statement live. Among the FBI's findings where that Clinton both sent and received emails that were classified at the “Top Secret/Special Access Program level”. They found that Clinton used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, both sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. The FBI accessed that it “is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Comey stated that although Clinton was “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information”, the FBI was expressing to the Justice Department that “no charges are appropriate in this case.”

On July 6, 2016, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers while secretary of state will be closed without criminal charges.

Please weigh in. Thank you... KamelTebaast 00:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this when you first put it up. I agree with many of the aspects you are trying to include, but the points can be made much more succinctly. For example, it's enough to say that the FBI findings contradicted multiple Clinton statements about something rather than listing out examples of those statements. It's also important to briefly convey why the FBI didn't recommend criminal charges. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Way too long. Just say that the FBI determined that Clinton's use of a private email server was wrong, but did not constitute a crime, as defined by relevant legislation. TFD (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we need something like this that summarizes the key findings. Less length is inappropriate, given the coverage and that integrity issues are central for any politician. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

TFD: That would be OR. Additionally, it's not true. Actually the FBI director's testimony the next day made it clear: Comey said on 7/7/2016 that he had "grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody ... for gross negligence." And that a prosecutor has done it once that he knows of in a case involving espionage, and so he didn't recommend it. His statement is a clear reference to the oft-discussed 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f), which says Anyone entrusted with it who, through gross negligence permits [stuff relating to the national defense] to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Why is it not worth mentioning that the only statement Clinton gave repeatedly during the debates about the emails was not true?--Elvey^(t•c) 03:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)(revised 01:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC))

That is your interpretation of the statute, but the FBI director determined that she did not violate the statute. It is important to remember that the wording of statutes is interpreted by courts and one needs to look at precedents to see how the court interprets them. While a reasonable person may think that Clinton showed "gross negligence," it does not meet that level as interpreted by the courts. No properly instructed jury could have convicted her or higher courts upheld a conviction. Note that the paragraph was written long before email was invented and even in the wording it is clear it does not apply. Clinton did not "remove" her emails from their "proper place of custody" because they never were in a proper place of custody. It is possible that the statute should be re-written to criminalize her actions, but I suppose no one anticipated that anyone would set up a private server in their basement. There was a case a few years ago in Canada where a woman shot her fetus in order to miscarry. There was no specific statute that outlawed that and the woman was never charged with anything.

Not sure why you think it is OR. It was of course OR on behalf of the director, but it is not OR to report what someone said or, if their view is consensus in reliable sources, to report their conclusions as fact.

TFD (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday, I noticed that the article said, in wikipedia's voice, that "none of the emails were marked classified at the time they were sent". This is now known to be false. (Unless you don't belive the Director of the FBI.) So I corrected the article, and made some technical improvements, (edit summary: Correction. "a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information"-FBI)) but my entire edit was reverted (edit summary: Because the proper headers were not included, it would be more correct to say "not properly marked as classified". Now, "the proper headers were not included" is WP:OR, as is "not properly marked as classified", AFAIK. It WAS generally believed to be true that none were MARKED as classified, but IS not generally believed anymore. In other words, Clinton led folks to believe that none of the emails sent through the server had classified markings. The FBI investigated and the Director reported that some of the emails sent through the server had classified markings. I quote him, above. I've followed up on the revert by putting the statement by the Times, that is now known to be false ("None of the emails were marked as classified at the time they were sent.") into the voice of the NYTimes, the source. I left it in, but I think the section should be reworked to eliminate it unless we can present it concisely.

Also, there's no mention that due to the lack of encryption between the Blackberry and the privately maintained server, experts say the system was probably hacked.

--Elvey^(t•c) 03:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Geez. Wikidemon came in and nuked most of the paragraph rather than participate in the discussion collegially. I'm not OK with this edit. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been here for a long time, and participate in the article on the subject. Your proposed content took things in the wrong direction. Devoting most of a paragraph to describing how a publication said something that was later found not to be true is undue detail that is about the reporting, not the controversy. Several of the other paragraphs in the section ought to be "nuked" as well. The section is overlong and goes into other irrelevant detail about who said what when. What appears to be the case based on the most recent sources is that Clinton claimed that they were not marked as classified, which is true, but that "a small number" contained markings from which it could be deduced that they were classified, which is also true. If we want to run through it, it would be useful to figure out here on the page exactly what that means, and then say it directly in the article without paragraph after paragraph of people opining as things unfolded. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? I can't take you seriously when you make arguments from authority and straw man me like that. Clinton claimed that they were not marked as classified, which is NOT true, according to the head of the FBI. The FBI director's congressional testimony made it clear: Comey said on 7/7 that he had "grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody ... for gross negligence." And that a prosecutor has done it once that he knows of in a case involving espionage, and so he didn't recommend it. His statement is a clear reference to the oft-discussed 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f), which says Anyone entrusted with it who, through gross negligence permits [stuff relating to the national defense] to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Demon, I'd ask you why you think is it not worth mentioning that the only statement Clinton gave repeatedly during the debates about the emails was not true, but you deny reality. You can repeat the lie 'till you run out of electrons, but it won't make it true in my eyes. I don't think the FBI director was lying. You do?--Elvey^(t•c) 01:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Comey identified just THREE emails marked as classified, but it was established they were not properly marked (no classified header) during Comey's hearing. I have provided a source to back this up. So Clinton can rightly claim to have not sent/received emails marked as classified. The facts are established, and the project does not need the right wing spin added as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Impressive spin attempt there, doctor. You've provided no such thing,Scjessey. You claim to have provided a 'source' but a source that reports hearsay is not a reliable source. Especially when we have that source speaking directly.

“ Gowdy, July 7: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

”

FFS!

--Elvey^(t•c) 07:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not spin. The 3 emails Comey referred to were missing the headers that indicate they are classified. That's simply a fact that you cannot dispute. There are many, many more sources out there that cover this. Here's an example. Here's another. Put as many in as you feel is necessary, but don't try to rewrite the facts to support your inaccurate narrative on Wikipedia, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This addition will guarantee proper neutrality is observed. Only 3 emails, not properly marked. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Hillary and WikiLeaks

(moved from my talk page)

I see that you keep putting expansion tags on the WikiLeaks material in the main Hillary article. I hope you are aware that there are two long paragraphs on that matter in the Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State detail article (see towards the end of the "Regional issues and travels: 2010" section). I didn't put more in the main article because, for better or worse, most sources that review her whole time as secretary don't give the WikiLeaks matter a lot of attention. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The appropriate place for this discussion is the article talk page. I am rarely active on politician's pages, but the lack of coverage was so glaring I thought the tag was warranted, so I put on _one_ tag and restored it after it was removed without being addressed, and with no explanation at all. Any such unexplained removal is, of course, not appropriate.

Spying_on_United_Nations_leaders_by_United_States_diplomats certainly seems to be a big story, worthy of mention in the main article, and is a story which the article you link to links to. Yet Hillary Clinton doesn't even contain the word 'spy' or any variation thereof!

As I said, "Article (even w/Kay's addition) doesn't even touch on the impact of the leak *on* Clinton (or her Department)." You claim to know what's in "most sources that review her whole time as secretary". What sources are you referring to that you know well enough make that claim?--Elvey^(t•c) 07:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

For example, the article uses five retrospective news stories published at the end of her tenure:

• Parnass, Sarah; Hughes, Dana (December 23, 2012). "Departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Leaves Behind a Legacy of Firsts". ABC News.
• Richter, Paul (January 28, 2013). "Hillary Clinton's legacy at State: Splendid but not spectacular". Los Angeles Times.
• Packer, George (February 11, 2013). "Long Engagements". The New Yorker.
• Myers, Steven Lee (July 1, 2012). "Last Tour of the Rock-Star Diplomat". The New York Times Magazine.
• Gordon, Michael R.; Landler, Mark (February 3, 2013). "Backstage Glimpses of Clinton as Dogged Diplomat, Win or Lose". The New York Times.

As far as I can tell from quick searches, none of them mention the WikiLeaks business.

Now, there did used to be a little more in this main article than there is now. If look at this March 2013 version you'll see this text:

In late November 2010, Clinton led the U.S. damage control effort after WikiLeaks released confidential State Department cables containing blunt statements and assessments by U.S. and foreign diplomats.[302][303] A few of the cables released by WikiLeaks concerned Clinton directly: they revealed that directions to members of the foreign service, written by the CIA, had gone out in 2009 under her (systematically attached) name to gather biometric and other personal details on foreign diplomats, including officials of the United Nations and U.S. allies.[304][305][306]

Would restoration of this text satisfy you? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You DrKay shouldn't have stealth-removed the tag I added. If you can acknowledge that you DrKay removed the tag without addressing it in any way, and add text that addresses the impact of the leak on Clinton (and her Department), I'd appreciate it. The text you quote is rife with euphemisms, however. The word spying is missing, and we have "other personal details" rather than specifics. Again, the impact of the leak on Clinton (and her Department) should be covered. Can you please state clearly whether you accept that or not? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: I did not remove the tag, stealthily or otherwise. The first tag was removed by DrKay with this edit, then you put the tag back in and it is still there. As for the wording of the previous text, I could adjust that to include "spying" and a few more details on the information collected. But as for the impact of the leak on Clinton and her Department, what do you want said? I have the impression that when the Arab Spring began a few months later, everyone in State became consumed with those problems and the WikiLeaks matter faded in importance. Do you have some sources you can point to for what you want included? Wasted Time R (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry. I've struck part of my post above. Sounds good. I don't actually have any sources in mind. Do you think that negates the need for text that addresses the impact of the leak on Clinton (and her Department)? I don't. Would you please edit the article as you've proposed to do, per our discussions so far before replying? I've asked you twice if you think if the impact of the leak on Clinton (and her Department) should be covered. --Elvey^(t•c) 03:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Chris from Houston edits

Re: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

There may be something worth keeping in all that, but is it worth trying to find it? I see a lot of issues around improper sourcing, improper referencing, excessive detail, and so on. At what point do you just revert the whole thing en masse and refer to WP:CIR? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Where's the consensus for the full name in infobox

@Randy Kryn: Would you please link to the consensus for adding Clinton's full name to the infobox? The infobox only had her first and last name for months until you added it two days ago.- MrX 01:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

See here for why I removed it. Calidum ¤ 01:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem that the status quo should remain until a consensus is reached to change it.- MrX 01:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

+1. "Status quo" being HC, to clarify. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

She also told the Washington Post she now prefers "Hilary Clinton" per the [BBC, and the Associated Press also switched to just "Hilary Clinton" because that's how she has refered to herself on the campaign trail. Calidum ¤ 01:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary, even. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• The discussion linked to ended with 'no consensus', which concerned the infobox title before it was changed to remove 'Rodham' (I think it was changed back and forth numerous times during the larger discussions). Unless I'm wrong the main conversation from last year's epic name change RM, which is the size of a novel with no index, included a discussion about the infobox name not being under consideration within the RM, and that it should keep the "old" full name. That was how I recalled it, hence the change. I won't revert again, but am wondering if anyone else recalls that particular discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn 14:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the state of the article at the time the RfC was started: [15]. Here is the edit from about two weeks prior in which the infobox title was changed to match the article title, immediately after the article title was changed: [16]- MrX 11:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

New photo

Hey everyone,

I propose there be a new picture for the infobox on this article. The current one is bordering on eight years old and should be from her current campaign.There is a wealth of suitable photos from the AIPAC conference and various get-out-the-vote events included on Wikimedia.

Thanks and I hope to see this remedied.

Aidan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidansi384 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

OK well, I see you went ahead and reverted the photo anyway without gaining consensus [17]. I mentioned in the edit history that this should be discussed before you revert [18]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Aidansi384: - Please see "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" near the top of this page, question 3. There has been some discussion that we can revisit that if she is not elected president. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Add more SoS accomplishments to lede, add 2016 signature issues?

I think the lede is still too focused on scandals and controversial votes at the cost of noncontroversial but major accomplishments and highly relevant facts. I think we should mention that as SoS, she negotiated sanctions on Iran in the lead-up to the Iran deal. As Senator, she was leading on health issues related to 9/11 (Zadroga Act and so on). I think it would also be fair to note that she left SoS with very high approval ratings. Surely these things are as important as the GOP's manufactured scandals which are in the lede?

I'd like to see more of the platform she has for the 2016 election in the lede. Given that that's what most people checking this wiki page are probably interested in and taking account of the fact that she's running for the most powerful office in the world, I think it's definitely not undue weight to place some of her signature issues in the lede. If you look at her opponent's page, his 2016 signature issues are in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised that the ceasefire in the Operation Pillar of Defense conflict is not mentioned in the article at all (much less the lede) - that would seem to be a singular diplomatic achievement. See "Israeli Envoy: Hillary Clinton Led The Way To Gaza Cease-Fire In 2012", New York Jewish Week (July 29, 2016). bd2412 T 22:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)