Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Travel Image

[edit]

Can someone tell me why the image of Clinton's travels is not displaying the most recent image? How do I fix this? Rick Evans (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton share a laugh before their meeting at State Secretariat building in Kolkata..JPG Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton share a laugh before their meeting at State Secretariat building in Kolkata..JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton share a laugh before their meeting at State Secretariat building in Kolkata..JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the lead

[edit]

A number of us are trying to improve the leads to important articles in order to ensure the increasing number of mobile users can obtain an immediate overview of the key items in the article. The lead also acts as a basis for translation from English into the other language versions of Wikipedia. I would therefore suggest expanding the present "As Secretary of State she has traveled widely and initiated many diplomatic efforts on behalf of the Obama administration" which actually says nothing. All SoS's travel and all initiate diplomatic efforts on behalf of the president. A fairly good summary to use as a guide is the lead for Condolezza Rice. Apologies for not dirtying my hands with this myself but I try to avoid politics. --Ipigott (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree with you, and the leads for my normal articles tend towards the lengthy (check out the Hillary Rodham Clinton main article itself). But this is a biographical subarticle, and the few readers who get to it tend to have already read summaries of her tenure in the main article lead or the main article "Secretary of State" section. Thus I believe that anyone who gets here really wants to dive straight to the detail material, and not see yet another summary. The proper comparison of this article would be to Condoleezza Rice's tenure as Secretary of State, whose lead is also very short. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that over 14,000 accesses in the past month indicates that many readers are specifically interested in HC's achievements as secretary of state rather than in her biography as a whole (although the latter did indeed have about 10 times as many page views). The lead in "Condoleezza Rice's tenure as Secretary of State" is as you say equally short. Unfortunately it is also equally uninformative with exactly the same description: "As secretary of state she traveled widely and initiated many diplomatic efforts on behalf of the Bush administration." Why not enhance the lead to HC as SoS by copying over the relevant passage from the lead to the full biography, i.e. "She was at the forefront of the U.S. response to the Arab Spring, including advocating the military intervention in Libya. Clinton introduced the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review process to the State Department, seeking to maximize departmental effectiveness and promote the empowerment of women worldwide, and used "smart power" as the strategy for asserting U.S. leadership and values in the world. She is the most widely traveled secretary during her time in office and also championed the use of social media in getting the U.S. message out." ? Rice's tenure lead could be enhanced along similar lines. I wouldn't mind betting there are lots of young people on smart phones out there who want to check out the main achievements without necessarily going through dozens of screenfuls before finding it. --Ipigott (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ratio is bigger than 10x - for January 2013 it was 13,335 for the subarticle versus about 455,000 for the main article (you have to add in stats hits from redirects). And this traffic was high because she was in the news a lot. Go back to, say, April 2012, and it's 3,695 versus about 175,000, about a 50x ratio. But in any case, I certainly don't object to your suggestion, and have added that text to the lead. (The main article lead text for this period is in a bit of discussion right now, but I can copy over whatever changes are made there to here.) Wasted Time R (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I managed to convince you about this. As you point out, traffic depends a lot on events in the news but any article with a few thousand page views a month should be up to the highest Wikipedia standards. --Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
CLOSED
(non-admin closure) This discussion is disruptive, and should remain on hold until the discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton has run its course. RGloucester — ☎ 15:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

– There is a move discussion going on at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to try to move Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. These articles are clearly unambiguous and do not need the maiden name (Rodham) as a qualifier. (For example, there aren't any other women named Hillary Clinton that have ever had a tenure as U.S. Secretary of State.) Epicgenius (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. If the main page gets moved, so will these, and if it doesn't, these won't either. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But we have Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008 and Hillary_Clinton_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008. Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wasted Time R. However the main page goes, so goes these pages; there is no need for a separate discussion. bd2412 T 02:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So should the requested moves actually go on the main pages talk page? Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, that request should have been formatted as a multi-move, but I don't think it will be at all controversial to conform these titles to the move result, if the discussion ends up with the main article being moved. bd2412 T 16:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold off and follow what happens at the main page. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Inappropriate as a separate discussion. The discussion at her primary article will settle the matter (at least for now). (BTW, Epicgenius, your "unambiguous" argument is completely irrelevant. There aren't any other presidents who have been named William Taft, but we still use the full name William Howard Taft - not as a disambiguator, but as the name he preferred and was commonly known by.) —MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed sources

[edit]

The Washington Free Beacon, and FrontPage Magazine meet WP:IRS. Even if they don't agree with an editors own political views, they are usable, see WP:POVSOURCE & WP:POVS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the OIG report, most of the Washington Free Beacon piece was okay, but its headline, first paragraph, and choice of photo were slanted and misrepresented the OIG report. The Foxnews.com piece I used instead for a source was much better in this regard. The Judicial Watch posting you included as a second source was as far from an RS as one could imagine. On the FOIA request, the FrontPage Magazine piece you used as a second source was a short blog-style rant wrapped around the AP story. Since you already had the AP as the first source, there was certainly no justification for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is this an encyclopedia or HRC's myspace page?

[edit]

This page reads like it was written by her PR firm, not an encyclopedia. Is it really relevant to her role as the Secretary of State that she was "A June 2011 trip to Africa found Clinton consoling longtime aide Huma Abedin after the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal broke"? Who cares? What does that have to do with diplomacy? Did she actually conduct any official business as the Secretary of State on that trip to Africa, or did she just spend the whole time consoling Abedin? It's not clear from the article at all. Also, who cares about her approval ratings in 2010? This article, concerning her tenure as the chief diplomat of the United States, should be about her role in diplomacy and governance. Instead it's just a hagiographical account of a four-year period of her life. 206.113.192.12 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's 90–95% an account of her activities as secretary and 5–10% a description of a few things that went on in her life during that time. That's because what does on in a political figure's life and image has an effect on what they do and how they do it. The books that deal with her tenure as secretary – Allen and Parnes HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton and Ghattas The Secretary: A Journey with Hillary Clinton from Beirut to the Heart of American Power – use the same kind of ratio. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock Tags

[edit]

Honestly Muboshgu, even a cursory glance over the section shows that it is blatently guilty of Puffery. It is featured in the very first statement alonside a perfect example of weasle words (another MOS violation): 

"While Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State has generally been praised"

Chrononem ☎ 19:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now we're having a discussion! I don't know that this is "puffery", though it is unattributed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually it's not unattributed. LA Times source says "She's won rave reviews from the American public and the president, but maybe not a prominent place in the diplomatic history books." The statement that her tenure "has generally been praised" could use more specific detail, but it's not wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please replace the tags as a good faith gesture, your behavior up till now has been indicitive of Edit warring and you've violated the 3RR. Chrononem ☎ 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same as yours. I already put the tag back. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Time's adoration must be included in quotes and attributed in the text if you can find a reason to include it at all. Wikipedia is not supposed to use an opinion piece as a primary source. Chrononem ☎ 19:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles Times piece is not an opinion piece; it is a story filed by their Washington-based reporter Paul Richter. But I have recast the beginning of it to a form that should not be objectionable: "While Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State was popular at the time among the public and praised by President Obama, ..." Those are simple facts (she had high approval ratings during this time and Obama did indeed praise here) that are supported by the Richter story and do not need in-text attribution or quotation.
For any other puffery, peacockery, etc that is bothering you, you need to list out here specifically what sentences or phrases concern you. Writers and editors aren't mind readers and it's not enough to speak in generalities. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good recast, I would like the text to mention that she was found popular according to X poll or Y poll because often different polls have drastically different results but your recast was good, I will look through the article and identify more problem areas when I get a chance in a few hours. Chrononem ☎ 12:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Five days have passed, no further specific issues have been identified, and now the editor in question has been blocked. I'm removing the tags. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium One

[edit]

In response to this edit, why would we mention contributions to the Clinton Foundation, but not Bill Clinton? Both are entities with close relationships with Hillary. I'm not necessarily in favor of the first part of the sentence in the reverted edit, but the second part seems as relevant as the rest of the content on this subject.CFredkin (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article is about Hillary at the State Department, and she is not responsible for Bill's speaking fees or who he decides to speak in front of, any more than she is responsible for Bill's counterproductive remarks during her 2008 presidential campaign or for his dalliances with Monica, Gennifer, et al in earlier years. Just like in the other direction, Bill isn't responsible for whatever Hillary did or didn't do in Travelgate and Filegate. Two different people. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's important to avoid the slippery slope of getting off topic just because the name Clinton appears. It's an easy mistake to make. The topic here is ONLY Hillary, and then ONLY in relation to her job as Secretary of State. That doesn't mean that Bill's name is banned from the article, but there must be very good and strong reasons for including mention of him and his actions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Tvoz/talk 05:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I managed to forget that there was an agreement in place from the start of Clinton's tenure where the State Department had an approval process that would okay Bill's speeches for any ethical conflict. That process is relevant to this article, and thus this material, backed by this Politico story, that was just removed by CFredkin due to this discussion, should go back in. My bad if these comments suggested otherwise. But the NYT story on the Uranium One business doesn't make any linkage between Bill's Moscow speech and this approval process, so on balance I'm still inclined not to mention it. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasted Time R: The NYT article DOES mention the speech, and DOES imply linkage. Here's the complete quote:

"'Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well. And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.'"
--- Jo Becker & Mike McIntire - "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal", NYT, April 23, 2015.

The NYT's point being, quite apparently, that the Clintons, as a married couple, benefited from that speech in the amount of $500,000 when her State Dept. didn't disapprove the deal. So, User:CFredkin is correct --- and we shouldn't be cherry-picking the other part of the quote out of the context of the entire NYT's quotation. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By 'linkage' I meant an explicit one to the State Department review process. But thinking about this further during the day, it's clear that approval of the content/audience of Bill speeches was in fact a State Department function, and thus implicitly the Moscow speech does belong. So I'm restoring a paraphrase of that. I'm also restoring the Politico material as noted above. I'm also adding a brief mention of some New Yorker reporting about how the State–Foundation reporting requirement was ducked. And I'm also adding a TV interview that has a direct quote from Hillary responding to this – the involved person's response always has to be present in something like this. I'm leaving out the NYT's "the special ethical challenges" bit, because as this FactCheck piece states, from which I'm also adding a couple of quotes, "... the Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton's official actions." Hopefully these additions will result in something everyone can live with. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a reasonable solution from my perspective.CFredkin (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tone/POV

[edit]

The entire article is fawning over her. Is there a tag for "written in slobbering devotion to the subject"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.219.135 (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Rewrite

[edit]

This article seems to be an extremely flattering account of her tenure, written from a purely American perspective. There's paragraphs on paragraphs of pure soft praise. Take the Nomination and Confirmation section for example. It reads much more like a biography than an unbiased history. Under the 2012 section there's a whole paragraph about some meme! What does that have to do with her work as Secretary of State! There is also zero mention of the controversies surrounding all of her foreign involvements, and only portrays her overseeing of regime changes as entirely benevolent and positive. This is an extremely Pro-American and Pro-Hillary article. I would be surprised if it was not written by a staffer of hers back in 2016. Billie Lean (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton%27s_tenure_as_Secretary_of_State&oldid=1240976439"