Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

hypothryoidism

please put in a reference to her hypothyroidism. it is a big deal and relevant to others with the same issue. thank you...[I think it's relevant bc of the symptoms(when undertreated): irritability, fatigue, memory loss, depression...] i also think 10% is rare enough to be interesting.

She also has seasonal allergies, and we don't include that either. Find a reliable source that says these minor medical issues are a "big deal" to the story of her life, and we'll consider including it. Tvoz/talk 07:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

As it happens, I have hypothyroidism, as does about ten percent of the population, although most people who have it are unaware of it. I take a supplement once a week, and it otherwise does not affect my life. The editor who posted this question might even have it, and be unaware of it. It seems like an unremarkable thing to mention in articles on politicians - we have no mention of it in articles on Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, for example. bd2412 T 19:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is extremely common and benign when treated. Unless there's an announcement of thyroid cancer or actual acute episodes notable in themselves, listing this would be like reporting thinning hair. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The more interesting part is that her doctor gave her a clean bill of health, but even that I don't think we need to mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of important and Reliable Sourced Clinton private email

An editor, Cwobeel (talk) who appears to perhaps have followed me over here from Huma Abedin has removed content which seems extra important to this BLP, especially from a historical perspective in the future. Also, perhaps relevantly, Muboshgu and Cwobee1 display ownership issues, at least with the Abedin BLP imo. Here is the content I feel belongs in this BLP.:

On the night of the attack, Clinton emailed her daughter that "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group. The Ambassador, whom I hand picked...". This email was sent at 11:11 P.M. on September 11, 2012, to "Diane Reynolds", a pseudonym for Chelsea Clinton. On that same night, Clinton released a public statement stating, "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."[1][2] Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Cwobeel is a prolific editor on all articles related to Hillary Clinton, so there is no case of "following" you here. Secondly, the content you are trying to add seems extraordinarily specific for a summary style article. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in 2012 Benghazi attack and you would have to make a case for inclusion on that article's talk page, although it looks suspiciously like synthesis to me. Certainly I cannot support its inclusion here, and Cwobeel was correct to remove it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That material does not belong here, as that section is a summary of a very long article as explained by Scjessey. You may argue for its inclusion (if not already there) at that article's talk page. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There are 1,360 articles related specifically to what Clinton said in this email on the very date of the Benghazi attack, i.e."Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group". Many great sources are included in the 1,360 such as ABCNews and the Chicago Tribune, and given the overall importance of the Benghazi attack on a US embassy which involved the killing of the Ambassador and other Americans and Clinton's position at that time as the primary government official responsible for the embassy staff, I think that this immediate reaction and report by Clinton concerning the event is certainly necessary to be included in her BLP. In fact, it may be the most important thing she has ever said throughout her many years of public service, or at least a case could be made to support that idea.Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought we've all been pretty clear on what sort of material belongs on what article. The email stuff should mostly be on the email article, for instance, but most of it doesn't belong anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There are 10s of thousands of articles about many subjects related to Clinton. That is not an argument for inclusion of that material that simply does not belong here. Your WP:ADVOCACY is becoming tiring. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, when using Google as a gauge of a news story's importance, it is preferable to to restrict the search to news. The number of articles using a Google News search is only 17, which pretty much confirms my suspicion that this is a NothingBurger. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Wikinews. I'm sure this content will make it into this BLP whether you 3 like it or not. Its the most historically and politically important statement ("Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.") Hillary Clinton has ever made. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your opinion on what is her most important statement. But your opinion is irrelevant. And it's not just the three of them who agree that this does not belong in this article at this time. Tvoz/talk 07:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Besides, "I'm running for President" is probably the most historically and politically important statement Clinton has ever made, but that's just my opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think most constructive talk page discussions are based upon opinions if the opinion is related to what to include in the article. All of the rule referencing and repetitive talking points by embedded editors is what is truly irrelevant and a total waste of talk space. Also, its hard for me to see how somebody saying something, that everyone else on the planet already knows, is important; well, almost everybody. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I still say that the statement Clinton made to her daughter on the very day that one of her embassies was overrun and one of her ambassadors was killed...a statement about who carried out the attack...is crucial for her BLP to be as good as it can be. And I'd prefer that this discussion stick with that specific point; i.e. the worthiness of including that statement by Clinton.Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

How? How is it "crucial"? In what way? She sent an email. How is that relevant to an encyclopedic biographical article? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be acceptable to just include: On the night of the attack, Clinton emailed her daughter that "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group. The Ambassador, whom I hand picked...". This email was sent at 11:11 P.M. on September 11, 2012, to "Diane Reynolds", a pseudonym for Chelsea Clinton. and leave out the sentence starting with "on that same night"? Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No. This is only of apparent significance because the right is making a ludicrous flap about the uncertainty at the time of whether or not it was a planned attack, or a result of the anti-Islamic video. Regular folks aren't interested in this partisan crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is not an either/or situation, however. There is no reason that the planning of an attack can not be instigated by a provocative video. bd2412 T 19:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite true, BD. Somehow this simple and pretty obvious point has eluded the Benghazi alarmists. Tvoz/talk 22:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I believe every Hillary Clinton email she ever wrote should be inserted into this article. I would compromise on only ones related in any way to Benghazi. However despite my eminent correctness in all things I appear to be in a microscopic minority. At least I realize this is the case.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I've come to agree with Scjessey (talk) about this BLP, as it exists, being partisan crap that regular people will not be interested in. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Cute. And the opposite of what Scjessey said. Also insulting to the editors who have worked long and hard on this BLP, for many years.Tvoz/talk 22:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Given what happened the last time you thought a Clinton article wasn't negative enough, I suggest you don't try to AfD this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I don't see Abedin as a Clinton article, I see all articles as independent. Back to this BLP, Common Sense tells me that a direct quote of what the Subject says about a major event in her life and career should be certainly included in her BLP, especially since the BLP includes so many less notable quotes like she described herself as "a mind conservative and a heart liberal" and really trite stuff like "I chose to follow my heart instead of my head". The only explanation that makes sense is that you simply want to exclude this quote because of you and others perhaps being paranoid about and/or intimidated by the perceived power and influence of some kind of "right wing conspiracy"theory? boogeyman that you guys are always talking about. Don't be afraid. Just edit with unbiased objectivity and assume others are doing the same. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of internal consistency, I checked the articles on Ronald Reagan and George P. Shultz, to see if either of their main articles contained comparable detail about the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, which was an event of much larger scale. Neither of them do. bd2412 T 05:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nocturnalnow. I think Clinton's email and public response about the attacks are notable and relevant enough to be included in this article.--Mouse001 (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The opinion of someone who operates a single-purpose account is of little value to this discussion, to be honest with you. Nobody cares about this email, and the confusion about the impetus for the attacks is well covered in 2012 Benghazi attack and related articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, people with an anti-Hillary agenda care about stoking the narrative, and the reporters working in the 24 hour news cycle need to keep digging through details. It's completely unencyclopedic, though, especially to say she emailed her daughter with vague details of an attack. What does that email tell us? Nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Muboshgu and Scjessey, this is not the place for you 2 to reinforce each other's sad and patheticly ad hominem attacks on any editor who dares disagree with you, however politely, as Mouse did re: this discussion... and Muboshgu, if you think that "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group." is "vague", I don't see how your opinions have any value on English Wikipedia because your knowledge of the meaning of common English words like "vague" is severely lacking. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Here are 5 quotes by the Subject which are in the BLP:

"I chose to follow my heart instead of my head".

"it showed that I was still me."

"sleeping sickness of the soul"

"a love that has persisted for decades"

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they'd they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?"

Could someone please explain how "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group." is less includable than those 5? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome and disruptive. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK already. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A classic case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT - Cwobeel (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't hide talk page discussions that aren't going your way, what are you afraid of now, critical thinking and objective editors seeing the discussion and making up their own minds? I won't be saying more unless others do. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussions are designed for the purpose of gaining consensus in regard of improving articles. This discussion has been exhausted, unless you have not noticed. See WP:CONSENSUS - Cwobeel (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Mouse001 (talk just endorsed the idea of including the statement within the past day. There are discussions here over 1 month old you can archive if you want but if you try to hide this discussion again out of turn, I will take that to the Admin. noticeboard and or the BLP noticeboard. This talk page is not OWNED by any of us nor any few of us. I won't be saying more unless others do.Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I do think we need the appropriate noticeboard. We're going around in circles here with this serious BLP matter. You're pushing ideas that have been fairly thoroughly discredited and therefore don't belong on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this proposed content is remotely pertinent to a biographical description of the life and times of Hillary Clinton. That the two editors promoting inapt content additions are basically SPAs is a concern, as is the observation that this mirrors a current (or perhaps a little stale by now) Republican campaign talking point is a concern. Certain things discussed in the email, for example her relationship with Blumenthal, might be significant of their own accord. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I know you are a great editor, but you should strike out your reference to me being a SPA. I am certainly not a SPA. As I state on my Talk page (since May), I am a new incarnation of Mr. Grant Evans 2 having several times forgotten my password (I'm a reaaaly old guy), as has been addressed and agreed to several times before, for one, here. I do not know why this mischaracterization keeps coming up? Muboshgu, Cwobee1, Scjessey, all know I am not a SPA. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone please answer the question directly above? "Could someone please explain how "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group." is less includable than those 5 (quotes listed above)? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC). That would really help me forget about this BLP if its a logical answer. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The first four quotes are autobiographical quotes, where Hillary Clinton is describing herself, and which are therefore appropriate to provide context to an article describing Hillary Clinton. The fifth is without a doubt the most widely reported and discussed quote about one specific incident that is covered in far greater depth in another article. From an editorial standpoint, that is why these quotes are more includable than an email describing that incident, which is the subject of another article, and not describing the subject of this article. As noted above, this is consistent with other articles on former U.S. presidents and secretaries of state. bd2412 T 18:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

ok thank you, bd2412 T; that makes sense to me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is no content from this NY Times article being allowed in the Wall Steet section?

The reasons for removal of Mouse's and my edits include OR and "implication" which do not apply at all to any of the edit attempts. Please clarify what parts of this article you would feel are includable. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The new article is an opinion piece, which means for the most part that it is not a reliable source to begin with. Its subject, an analysis of her political image and a perceived vulnerability, may or may not be relevant to a particular election-related article, but it is not a biographical fact of the sort that adds to this main article. The entire section, a campaign-season position proposal having to do with Wall Street, may be similarly irrelevant here. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't revert it because the source was an opinion piece. I reverted it because Mouse001 invented an agenda-driven narrative to portray the NYT piece as outright criticism. Despite an apparent effort to get around this, Nocturnalnow did exactly the same thing by using words like "however" and "also" to make it seem like a rebuttal to Clinton's stated goals for Wall Street. These are just about the clearest examples of non-neutral editing for the sake of fake "balance" you will see on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the whole section about her Wall Street proposol, since it does not appear to be relevant to this BLP per some editors comments.--Mouse001 (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidemon, there are other Op Eds eg. 311 and 307 used as sources, however, I agree with you and maybe more OpEd content could be moved to other articles. I also agree with you and now Mouse001 that the entire section may be irrelevant and I support Mouse001's removal of it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that her releasing a Wall Street plan belongs on her subpages, not here. OpEd content is generally not good to include, but it's okay if it's sourcing factual information. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. The whole point of a summary style article is that we shunt stuff that isn't biographically significant to the subject's entire life into subpages, and this is an example of that. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Alfred Taylor case

Is her first criminal case, where she defended Thomas Alfred Taylor in 1975 in a case involving a 12 year old, worth noting here in this section? Particularly since it is making news rounds and apparently also did so in 2008? Daily Beast covered it 20 June 2014] for example. 184.146.6.191 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of a criminal defense lawyer to do everything in their power to get their client the lightest possible sentence, or no conviction at all. Since Clinton did exactly that, it's hard to see why this is significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the story seems to be more about Clinton's behavior than the legal case. Plus there are 1590 articles about Clinton's behavior regarding that case, including many by reliable and unbiased sources like CBS news, ABC news and the Washington Post. I think 184.146.6.191 may have a good suggestion here. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Do the search with Google News to weed out some of the nonsense, and the number of hits drops to around 50, most of which are garbage websites from the whack job fringe echoing each other. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Here are 3 which seem like enough for a notation cbsabcwash post. There are also FOX news, Politico, NY Daily News, Slate Forbes, etc. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What precisely is there about "Clinton's behavior" in this case that's worth mentioning? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning Clinton's behavior in the mainstream sources. The few sources that exist are basically saying that Republicans are trying to "make hay" out of the fact that Clinton once did her job properly. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I see something that has nothing to do with partison politics. I see this in the ABC article coming from the woman raped by Clinton's client:"Hillary Clinton took me through hell," the victim told the Daily Beast in an emotional interview published today. The woman said that if she saw Clinton today she would say, "I realize the truth now, the heart of what you've done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I heard you on tape laughing." Its annoying to have to continually hear about Republican or conservative or right wing-strawmen with every little bit of content that is not puffery; that's my problem, getting tired of hearing the same old objections to RS content when the sources of the content are not referencing the strawmen at all. Since nobody else seems to be actually reading the sources before dismissing them all, I think we just have to go back to being bold and then having a discussion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I read the source before I asked you that question, so AGF. The comment of that woman is total puffery and, like Scjessey said, just an attempt to smear Hillary. She did her job as a lawyer. If you can actually point to something inappropriate that she did during the trial, we can discuss adding it, but just mentioning that she defended an accused rapist and putting in that quote? You're again trying to skew this article to the right-wing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2015

Net Worth. Hillary Clinton's net worth is $31.3 million. Our Hillary Clinton net worth number comes from analyzing her 2015 U.S. Public Financial Disclosure Reports. Bill Clinton has an estimated net worth of $80 million Hello everyone! (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request specific, preferably in the form of change X to Y. Further, you will need to provide reliable sources for any information you propose to change or add. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I would like to propose the removal of the "2015 appearance before House Select Committee on Benghazi" sub-section and merge it with the email controversy sub-section as well as trim the excessive details.

The reason why I do not think it should be a section is because:

1. It lacks notability within the scope of Clinton's biography. No one will care about a "2015 hearing" a year from now. Clinton has done many hearings in Congress, this one only being the most recent.

2. It lacks relevance being listed under the main section "Secretary of State". Notice that the other sub-sections under "Secretary of State" are actually more related to her activities during the time she worked as the Secretary of State and are far greater with much more historical context.

3. It is more related to the "Email controversy" sub-section than "Secretary of State." The email controversy article has its own comments on the hearing with a link to the Benghazi Committee article and I think this level of organization is much more appropriate.

--Mouse001 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Because...

1. It received massive, pervasive coverage in the mainstream media over many days, blowing your "lacks notability" theory out of the water.
2. It was a hearing on her performance as Secretary of State during the Benghazi attacks, but it needs to be an independent subsection because it occurred after her tenure at State.
3. No, it is separate from the email issue. In fact, it was a targeted Republican attack on the Democratic frontrunner for the Presidency.

Leave it all in and stop trying to inflate the importance of the email issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It did receive much media coverage around the time she testified, but the testimony itself is not a significant enough biographical fact for a section under "Secretary of State" and pales in comparison to the other sections. (WP:RECENTISM) I suppose it would be more appropriate and encyclopedic to summarize the post-Benghazi investigation by the committee instead as Clinton's hearings was a part of it. The current version is also not a summary of the main article that is linked (United States House Select Committee on Benghazi). I have attempted to change it in here--Mouse001 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. Completely inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please be more clear in your policy-based reason for removal?--Mouse001 (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You are proposing a removal, not me. You need to provide policy-based reasons, not me. Please stop using Wikipedia to push your agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have provided policy-based reasons in my above post and edit summary. I am asking for your policy-based reasons for reverting my edit.

You said "Rvt per WP:NPOV, relevance." in your summary and I would like you to emphasize. What part(s) of NPOV are you referring to and what about the relevance?--Mouse001 (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Interjecting here. Mouse001, the purpose of including this section is to describe specifically Clinton's testimony before the Benghazi Committee. It doesn't and shouldn't summarize the Benghazi Committee article. Rather, it summarizes a section of that article that is specifically relevant to Clinton's appearance. I believe that's what Scjessey means by "relevance."

Going back to the root of this discussion (your proposed removal and subsection merger), I agree with Scjessey that this "trimming" doesn't contribute constructively to the article. Clearly, as I'm sure you and I can agree, the testimony discussed (or at least intended to discuss) things related to her tenure as Secretary of State. Although the hearing didn't necessarily take place during her tenure, the hearing still pertains to that tenure. As Scjessey mentioned, the testimony was also separate from the email controversy. Yes, sure, you could say that they were part of the same umbrella "investigation," but still they were separate issues nonetheless, and thus should remain in separate subsections. GabeIglesia (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have agreed that the email controversy and the testimony are separate. I wanted to summarize the Benghazi Committee article instead because still I don't think that the testimony has much notability in the long term (See WP:RECENTISM). It did receive much media coverage around the time she testified recently, but in the long term I don't think it would have as much importance. I think that the section should be written in another way that is in a more encyclopedic/historical point of view and not slanted towards recent events.--Mouse001 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, the testimony attracted massive coverage that lasted for a long time, with every statement and nuance by Clinton and the members of the committee dissected and discussed at length. It's notability is beyond question. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

politician vs diplomat

She was a senator. She is running for president. John Kerry the current secretary is described as politician. the position of secretary is a political appointment. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. Secretaries of State are diplomats, not politicians. We may have to improve Kerry's article; thank you for the suggestion. The problem comes with the syntax of this first sentence. She is not currently a politician; she is a former politician; she is currently unemployed; she was formerly a senator. By the same token, she is not currently a diplomat; she is a former diplomat; she is currently unemployed. Instead of unemployed, she might be a philanthropist due to the Clinton Foundation--does she still hold a job title there? If so, we may want to add a first sentence saying, "HRC is a political candidate and philanthropist; she was formerly a diplomat and politician." What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The word "politician" is not a very neutral word, and it's not necessary to shove it at readers in the lead paragraph, but I support it here because my removal of it has failed at Republican BLPs. The word "politician" is redundant given the statement that she was a US Senator and is a current candidate. Per dictionary, a politician is, "2. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering: 'Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process' (John F. Kennedy)." American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Or consider this dictionary definition: "2 ... b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons". Merriam Webster Dictionary 2011. NPOV is not served that way. Nor do many political figures self-identify as politicians. While the word "politician" is itself not a huge deal, it's certainly unnecessary, but I support it here unless it's removed at Republican BLPs too. Hillary Clinton is a politician as much as anyone on Earth.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A third suggestion (on top of "philanthropist" and "political candidate") might be "investor." But is there a specific definition of "investors" that we use on Wikipedia? This article from Forbes (a reliable source) suggests that she is worth US$30 million, which may be enough to be regarded as an "investor." Has she disclosed her stock portfolio and other investments?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:CFredkin: Please revert your revert while we are discussing this. I won't do a third revert, we are in the middle of a serious discussion and you should have known better and discussed here on the talkpage instead of reverting.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:STATUSQUO it is up for you to build WP:CONSENSUS for your change, not us to build consensus against your change. Clearly there is not yet consensus for the change (although I could see some changes being possible here) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I see it as a matter of grammar and logic. I still feel like User:CFredkin's revert was premature given this discussion though. But as long as we can have a rational discussion here, most editors may end up agreeing with me. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Where did you ever get the idea that Wikipedia editors are rational? 😎Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I always give people a chance. That's what talkpages are for. In any case, can anyone confirm that she still holds a job title at the Clinton Foundation (which would make her a philanthropist on top of political candidate), and does she meet the criteria to be an investor with a networth of over US$30 million?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If you say in the lead what her net worth is, I don't see any need to add that she's an investor. We try to be concise here, and people will assume that the money is not under her mattress. She's also a tetrapod but we don't need to be explicit about it. Does that seem rational?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

She is obviously a politician, and that is what any reliable source would describe her as: she has formerly held elective office, and she is currently running full-time for elective office. She has had many other focuses too, including lawyer and philanthropist and even author, but "politician" is the single word that describes her best. That has been the settled description in the lead for this article for a long time, and it should not be changed to something else until AFTER consensus is reached here. Per WP:BRD: you made the bold edit, it was reverted, now we are discussing. In cases where a change is controversial, the default is to retain the original wording until consensus is reached to change it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN: Again, I don't see how you can argue that she is currently a politician. She's not. She is currently a political candidate. The status matters. User:Anythingyouwant: My point is that I think it would be better grammar and more accurate to start the lead with a short sentence; something like, "HRC is a political candidate, philanthropist and investor; she was formerly a politician and diplomat." And then go on to sum up her tenure as Secretary of State, Senator, First Lady. This would make a lot more sense both in terms of grammar and logic IMO. With regards to being an investor, has she disclosed her stock portfolio and other investments? Perhaps we should add a section about this. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The word "politician" applies to any person active in party politics, which Hillary Clinton most certainly is, not just to people currently employed in political service. This is really a silly discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey: Don't you think "political candidate" would describe her status much more accurately? And please refrain from making personal attacks. We are trying to have a constructive discussion here, and dismissing it with epithets is not helpful. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Our article on Jimmy Carter calls him a politician in the first sentence, and he has neither held any office nor been a candidate for any office for 35 years. Perhaps more to the point, we also call Martin O'Malley a politician and he doesn't currently hold any elective office. I don't think it is necessarily a negative term, and it does not necessarily mean that the person currently holds elective office. Being a former Senator, former Secretary of State and current candidate for a major-party nomination for President certainly qualifies. Neutron (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What "personal attack" or "epithet" are you referring to? And no, Clinton is a politician. Even while she was a diplomat, she was still a politician. She has engaged in political activity for virtually her entire life, and trying to pretend she isn't a politician is ludicrous. We can probably find several thousand sources in short order, if you still aren't convinced. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not like the "silly" epithet/micro-aggression, but I have a thick skin. In any case, when she was Secretary of State, she did not comment on US politics, because she was not allowed to do so. She was a diplomat, not a politician. You can rewatch the interviews she gave on youtube and see for yourself. I believe it would be more accurate to start the lead with, "HRC is a political candidate, philanthropist and investor; she was formerly a politician and diplomat.". There is nothing controversial about this and it would be completely accurate and neutral, which is what we want.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s, the disagreement here seems to be that you are defining "politician" as "current holder of elective office". That seems very much out of sync with actual usage. By your definition, only the winner of an election is a politician? And the loser, who engaged in politics just as eagerly as the winner and may have been running for office for years, is not a politician? And as soon as an elected official steps down or loses an election, they are suddenly not a politician after all? And "she is not a politician, she is a political candidate," as if there was a difference? I don't know where you got that definition but it doesn't seem to be finding any support at that discussion - or at any existing Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• She is a politician, currently running for a political office, and she has a politician been most of her life - and that is what makes her notable. That her most recent job was technically that of a diplomat is rather irrelevant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:MelanieN: Are you saying she is not a "political candidate"? I am concerned about accuracy, to write the best lead/article possible! User:Maunus: The structure of the first sentence in the lead attempts to conflate both her former role as politician and her former role as diplomat; it's one long sentence which links both as if both were the same. That's inaccurate. More to the point: What don't you like about "HRC is a political candidate, philanthropist and investor; she was formerly a politician and diplomat."? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont like that it is incorrect. She is not "fomerly" a politician. She is currently one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

What's inaccurate is that the sentence starts by calling her a "politician" and ends with her former role as a diplomat. It conflates both; it's not rigorous.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It is perfectly accurate. She is a politician and she served as Obama's secretary of state. A foolish rigor is apparently another hobgoblin getting in the way of article writing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Of course she is a political candidate. The short name for that is "politician". That's what she is, that's how she currently spends all her time. All the other stuff that could be mentioned, that she also is - attorney, author, diplomat, philanthropist, activist, investor, former First Lady, mother, grandmother, you name it - all that is secondary to the simple fact of what she is: a politician, which incorporates a person currently running for elective office as well as a person who formerly held elective office. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Then don't mention her former diplomatic role in the same first sentence. Break it up into two separate sentences, at the very least.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we at least add "and diplomat" to the first sentence? As in, "HRC is an American politician and diplomat who served as the 67th United States Secretary of State under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013."?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No, her notability is as a politician. In fact can you provide some kind of evidence that the Secretary of State is even considered a diplomat?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of State is a diplomatic role, not a politician's job. So the sentence does not work.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Politicians can carry out diplomatic roles. So can grandmothers. The sentence works fine. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, a diplomat's role is to follow foreign policy. The Secretary is a political appointment as the lead diplomat. It is a politician whose role is diplomacy. The terms are not mutually exclusive, and by far politician is the role most associated with Clinton. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've already explained that she did not talk about US politics when she was Secretary of State, because she was not allowed to do so, as she was a diplomat, not a politician then. Ergo, I believe the syntax in the first sentence of the lead, which conflates both roles, is broken. But I have explained this sufficiently and I give up for now.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"less discord"

There are two sides to every story, and this is certainly the case with the assertion that there was "less discord" on the Obama national security team. I made an edit that attempted to tell both sides of the story, but it was reverted. I will therefore make another attempt. I don't know what version is best, but I am certain that it is not appropriate to state disputed information as fact. CometEncke (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There are not two sides to every story, there is only content supported by the weight of the sources. What is the basis of your dispute with the information presented? As written, the new proposed language is says that although a source says there was less discord, a book happens to criticize her. That's a non-sequitur, and even if the two statements were connected it would be WP:SYNTH to connect them. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's also worth noting the source is Robert Gates, a political opponent of Obama and Clinton. Should his book receive equal billing to the sum of all the other sources that dispute his analysis? I think not. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not just "a book" -- the author of the book was the secretary of defense at the very time that Time Magazine made the assertion of less discord. "Less discord" would presumably include not having key members of the team end up as political opponents, or harshly critical. CometEncke (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add that I don't have any particular attachment to the language I put into the article. My concern is that the assertion that there was "less discord" on the team, and saying that Clinton "forged an alliance" with Gates, without mentioning that Gates ended up as an opponent, gives the reader a misleading impression. CometEncke (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally put the 'less discord' material in, but it isn't worth this amount of trouble. It seems that Gates acted as though he was mostly okay with what was going on, but inside was often fuming. Whether that counts as overt discord or not, hard to say. But how Gates felt is really a subject for the article on him and whether the foreign policy staffs got on well or not is really a subject for one of the Obama presidency articles. This article can stick to HRC's relationship with Gates, which all sources including Gates' memoir agree was good. I've revised the article to this point, cutting back to the source that supports it, and removed any statements about overall discord. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Uncited claim in the lead: In 1988 and 1991, The National Law Journal listed her as one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America"

Can anyone please either remove this uncited claim, or add an in-line reference, since this is a direct quote? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It is cited in the article body (third paragraph of "later Arkansas years"). Nothing in the lede has citations. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That said, one could reasonably question whether it is important enough for the lede. CometEncke (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been in the lead since 2007, and as far as I know this is the first time someone has suggested taking it out. It helps to show that she was quite accomplished before she got to Washington as First Lady. Leads often mention prizes or awards that the subjects of the article have received (look at articles about musicians, writers, architects, etc) and the example in WP:PEACOCK suggests pointing to specific honors rather than making general assertions of importance or influence. Wasted Time R (talk)

Net worth

Do we all agree Hillary Clinton's net worth is biographically significant? I'm not sure it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is significant. She made millions as a successful lawyer. Please don't censor it; this is not meant to be a political advertisement where we portray her as working-class. Wikipedia is not censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about censoring anything. I'm asking the regular editors of this article whether or not they think Clinton's net worth is biographically significant, which is how we decide if things should be included or excluded on Wikipedia. Besides, you are wrong. Her current net worth has nothing whatsoever to do with her career as a lawyer. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a close connection which entitles you to know how she made her millions? And btw I am a regular Wikipedia editor (not necessarily on this article, but no need to dismiss/marginalize me).Zigzig20s (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. But the aspersion you cast is beside the point. There is no evidence to suggest she has made a single cent from being a lawyer since her husband left office and they were reported as "broke". I'd be astounded if you could find a single source to say she has made money from being a lawyer at any point in the last 20 years. And I am not dismissing you at all. I am seeking the opinion of other regular editors of this article, rather than the person who actually added this content to the article. Try not to be so ridiculously sensitive if you intend to continue your internet machinations. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think it is significant enough to be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is. There are many sources which discuss it. She has discussed up her worth multiple times ("dead broke", "Not truly well off") etc. Especially in this election which has quite a bit of spinning on who is beholden to whom, and where the money comes from , it is particularly relevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think it should be included, but not in the intro. In fact, a number of other things that are in the intro now probably should not be in the intro, either. It is way too long. Neutron (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump has his net worth listed in his infobox. However, I tried to add it to her infobox and it wouldn't show up. I don't think this is an HRC problem--I think it's a problem with the politician infobox. Could we fix that? In the mean time, I don't think her net worth should be buried/hidden at the bottom of the article, as everyone seems to agree that it is a very significant piece of information.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont think it should be in the infobox.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Net worths already appear in regular infoboxes, for everybody else. Why should we not have the same rule for politicians' infoboxes? This does not seem right. No animal should be more equal than others.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

NEtworth is typically mentioned in the infoboxes of business people, not politicians.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My argument would be that Clinton's wealth is not a defining characteristic of her biography, and so it is (as Neutron wisely stated) probably not something worthy of the introduction to the article. I'm sure there are plenty of Sanders/O'Malley supporters who would be keen for this to be in the article. I would further argue that net worth rarely appears in the infobox of politicians after looking through a few dozen prominent examples. And I would also add that the wealth of Donald Trump is a completely different kettle of fish, because he has made it the central feature of his candidacy, in fact quite often declaring he is worth far more than he is. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, "net worth" appears in the articles of current candidates thus:

Appears in the introduction

Hillary Clinton

Appears in the infobox

Donald Trump

Does not appear in either

Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Chris Christie

I think from this it is clear it should absolutely not be in the introduction or the infobox. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, this is because at the moment, the template of politicians's infoboxes won't let us add their net worths. Trump does not have a politician's infobox at the moment, which is why his net worth is listed in his infobox. I believe the template of politicians's infoboxes should be updated with "net worth", as the regular infobox (for every other person on Wikipedia, be they a businessperson or a writer/painter/whatever) does include their net worths. Politicians should follow the same rules as everybody else.

As for the significance of HRC's net worth, it has been highlighted as fairly central to her campaign by other editors above. Therefore, I believe it should absolutely be in the lead/introduction (and ideally in the infobox, once that is updated). I do not believe this referenced, fact-based piece of information, which is central to her campaign, should be censored for one second. Wikipedia is not censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a really silly proposal. "Networth" is not a piece of information that is relevant or available for most people. It generally is only for businesspeople (both available and relevant).That is why it makes sense to have it in their infoboxes but not for most politicians or most people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Calling it "silly" without explaining why seems like a micro-aggression, which is not nice. It's in all other infoboxes, not politicians, which seems like censorship. If you want to turn this article into a political advertisement, portraying her as a "broke" working-class social justice champion, don't be surprised that the voter turnout is so low. People are discouraged by lies. My point is that if Forbes deemed it sufficiently significant to publish an article about her wealth, she talked about her own wealth during the campaign, and her main competitor has his net worth listed in his infobox, she should be treated equally here--she is not above her competitors, and she is not above voters either. Out of respect to everyone, this critical piece of information should not be censored. It might be an inconvenient truth for her, but America is still a free country!Zigzig20s (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The subsequent two sentences explain why it is silly. Her main competitor by the way is Bernie Sanders.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Should not be in the intro. And net worth was deliberately removed from the officeholder infobox back in 2008 – see Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 8#Net Worth? Really?. In addition to the reasons given there, it's often tricky for politicians. Consider John McCain for example: his own net worth isn't that much, but his wife's is around $100M. However it is mostly tied up in the business she inherited from her father. It's not the same as a politician who has $100M of his or her own money ready to burn on a campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not in the lead/introduction? Are you simply voicing an opinion? As for your third point, here we added HRC's wealth on her own, and her combined wealth with her husband, as Forbes does. We stuck to the source. Since she is married, that makes sense. Now, John McCain is not a fair comparison in this specific case, because he is not currently running for president. Donald Trump is, and he does have his net worth listed in his infobox (at the top of his article for everyone to see).Zigzig20s (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that a consensus formed in 2008, when John McCain was running for president, that net worth doesn't belong in the infobox of political figures (and sort of by extension, usually doesn't belong in the lead either). It certainly does belong somewhere in the body of the article; this isn't a question of censorship, but of editorial judgment regarding placement. Now if you can convince the folks at Template talk:Infobox officeholder to put it back in there, fine, figures can be given for everyone that are visible at the top of articles. But HRC should not be a special case. Trump kind of is a special case, partly as people say because he's been a business figure most of his life, and partly because he makes a point of bragging about and exaggerating his wealth. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

HRC has bragged about being "broke." (I wish I were as "broke" as she is.) She has made it a campaign issue; indeed, central to her campaign, as other editors pointed out earlier in this discussion. I believe we should be fair and treat both HRC and Trump the same way. I am not a Trump supporter, but I feel like they should receive the same treatment on Wikipedia and voters will decide. (Not sure why she does not promote her financial prowess more as one of the things that Republicans and independents like about her is that she is a Material Girl; she even talks about her need for consumerism in Living History, and says that Bill is content with very little, barely enough to buy food and books, while she needs a lot of money.) In any case, when I added the referenced info about her net worth, I added in the "edit summary" that I was not sure where else to add it, since there is no "personal life" section as regular Wikipedia articles do. I agree with you that changing the infobox template would be ideal. But again, let's treat her equally. Doesn't she want equal pay? Pun intended.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This has gone far enough. We are not having net worth in the infobox or the introduction. Nobody agrees with you on this. It's different for Donald Trump because he is chiefly known as a businessman who brags about his net worth, not a politician. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey: You removed this referenced info without consensus. Yes, two editors do agree with me that it should be in the article: User:Maunus (who said, "I think it is significant enough to be included.") and User:Gaijin42 (who said, "I think it is. There are many sources which discuss it.")! Who are you to go against the consensus? Just because you don't like it, is not an argument. Or because this may go against the image she is trying to portray in her political ads--this is not a political ad; this is a fact-based Wikipedia article. Now, Donald Trump is clearly a "politician" at the moment--he is her biggest competitor--both should be treated equally.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record I think it should be in the article, not in the infobox or in the lead.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Either way, it's been redacted from the article completely, without consensus. I hope this is restored very soon. But User:Maunus: Why do you believe it should not be at the top of the article (lead or infobox) in the same way as her main competition, Trump? Why should she be getting special treatment?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not "special treatment", but a simple consequence of our content policies. Policies requires us to write a lead that provides the most significant information about a topic, not one that is modeled on what choices others have made for some other article. Networth is not one of the most significant facts about Clinton, but it is about Trump.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, precisely because she has made it central to her campaign, as other editors pointed out earlier. Besides, the information has been completely and utterly redacted/censored from the entire article without consensus--how is that acceptable?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not stated that it is acceptable, but per policy it cannot be included unless there is a consensus to do so. So find a way to demonstrate the consensus. An RfC would be suitable for this purpose.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

While I am far from a regular contributor in the article, I have to point that Template:Infobox officeholder is currently used in over 83,000 pages and potential changes could affect many of them. Is it worth the trouble for a single article, when the information could be instead added to the body of the article? Dimadick (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dimadick: I believe this would be useful information for all politicians, not just HRC. And yes, this referenced info should never have been redacted from her page without consensus... I hope it is restored very soon, since many editors agreed that it should be in the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the net worth material definitely deserves to be in the article somewhere, just not in the lead. I have restored it (made a little more succinct) by putting it into the "Clinton Foundation" section, which already contains descriptions of their earnings after she left the Department of State. This follows the existing pattern of the article, which is to include financial information where chronologically appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

An excellent compromise, WTR. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Major" vs. "prepared"

Obviously not a big deal, but I found this revert [3] curious. Is "prepared" really a POV term? I thought of it as a factual description of the speech. It was a speech HC had prepared, not speaking off the cuff. That gives better context to the Chinese offense -- if she had speaking off the cuff, they might have regarded it as less significant. Additionally, "major" is a matter of opinion, while "prepared" is factual. If anything, "major" would seem to be more POV than "prepared". So why the revert, and why the characterization of "prepared" as a POV term? CometEncke (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite right, in the heat of the moment, I thought the editor had changed "prepared" for "major", which would sound POV. I think it should be "prepared". FYI, I am not interested in improving her article further because I got a lot of abuse for it when I did earlier, and that's not worth my time. So let's leave it at that, but "prepared" does make more sense.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Benghazi

I think a telling of the video/terrorism part of the Benghazi story should contain a few key elements, which I've just tried to do: The Administration at first blamed the video, but later said it was a terrorist attack. Clinton defended her actions and blamed the fog of war for the shifting explanation; others accused her of lying about that. I felt the version prior to my recent edit was too vague, as it did not mention the video, resulting in a sentence about Hillary defending different explanations, without saying what those explanations were. I used Fiorina for the "others accused her of lying part; I'm sure she isn't the only option for that.CometEncke (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by the addition of a reference to what "The Administration" did, since this article is about Hillary Clinton, not the Obama Administration. Can you provide a source specifically attributing this assertion to Hillary Clinton? bd2412 T 13:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton was part of that administration. The families of multiple Benghazi victims attribute statements from her about blaming the video for the attacks. She specifically discussed her prior statements during the hearings ("CLINTON: Well Congressman, I believe to this day the video played a role."), and there are numerous stories covering her linking the film to the attacks (at one time) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This summary style article is not the right place to put this stuff, because the brief explanation you give it doesn't do it justice, putting more in would be undue weight, and it is already properly covered in 2012 Benghazi attack. Furthermore, the opinion of a political opponent like Carly Fiorina (who will always take the opposing view, no matter what) is not relevant or necessary here. I've reverted your edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

its amazing how anything negative about Hillary can only be discussed in a different article. If only there were a policy about that. Like say WP:POVFORK Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If there were a separate article it would still have to be summarized in this one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There is also this: "Family members of the victims say when the bodies were flown back to the U.S., Clinton told them the U.S. government would "make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted." [4] CometEncke (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The best account I've seen about the matter of what she told family members is this WaPo Fact Checker piece from a couple of weeks ago. Their conclusion: "Every person we interviewed appeared sincere about recounting what they remember they had heard. Even with the sharply different versions, one can see that elements of the recollections overlap. [...] Clinton says that in speaking with the families, she did not blame the Benghazi attacks on the video. Most participants we interviewed (four out of six) back up her version, saying they do not recall her mentioning a video. Perhaps it all started with a comment made by Rice (who two days later would famously go on national television and make a direct link between the video and the attack, thus spoiling her chance to become secretary of state). Perhaps the question of who said what at what moment got jumbled over time. Or perhaps Clinton mentioned the video privately to just two people — and not to others. Clearly we cannot come to a resolution that would be beyond dispute." Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the final resolution of this should be, I'm sure of this much -- the current treatment [5] is going to be confusing for any reader who is not familiar with the Benghazi story. It talks about "differing explanations", but does not say what the varying explanations were. It says the explanations "became politically controversial", but does not mention the basic elements of said controversy, nor how that controversy involved Clinton, other than that she apparently needed to explain the differing explanations and attributed them to "fog of war." CometEncke (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

All we need is a summary. That's it. We do not need comments from obvious political opponents that are part of the usual back-and-forth of election season, such as the comments made by Fiorina. And we certainly do not need to duplicate a blow-by-blow account of the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks in this article, since such details aren't biographically significant. It would be synonymous with giving a blow-by-blow account of the Bin Laden death on Barack Obama, which we don't do either. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A "summary" that removes all detail is not a summary. burying all controversy is a WP:POVFORK. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversy is probably not the right word for it, more like a political attack. Those generally are not biographically significant, there is a high threshold before tactical moves and countermoves in the game of politics become truly significant to a person's life and career. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You keep on bringing up WP:POVFORK, but you don't seem to understand what it means, because nobody is suggesting anything about leaving anything significant out.. Perhaps you should read it. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that it should be excluded. This information is widely mentioned and I think it holds enough significance to be included in a summary.--ICat Master (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There are three things to consider when deciding to include/exclude anything. First, it must be significantly covered in reliable sources. Second, it must be covered only in appropriate weight. Third, and this is more specific to a biography, it needs to make sense from a historic perspective - will it still be considered significant in the years to come? The last is really only something we can decide on with a discussion that leads to a consensus. One thing is obvious. What political opponent Carly Fiorina said is most certainly not historically or biographically significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In a way I actually agree with Scjessey above, which may be surprising since I am the one who put it in in the first place. And yet I do think there is something there which is biographically significant -- a lot of people don't trust her, and Benghazi appears to have contributed to that. 'Also, the Clinton campaign's perpetual use of euphemisms, from "witch hunt," "mistake," "evolve," "convenience," "Benghazi," "BS scandal," "shouting," and "responsibility" ("I take full responsibility" is a phrase used often) contributes to the viewpoint that the former Secretary of State isn't trustworthy.' [6] CometEncke (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016

The Secretary's main photo is now 6 years old. I suggest putting a newer photo. There are plenty. Knighttraba (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: A edit request is a request for changes that are clear, such as "Change X to Y", which you did not provide. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 02:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone should provide a new photo. HRC doesn't look anything like that picture nowadays

Where did the "scandals" go?

The drop down menu with information on her previous scandals and criticisms are no longer there? Professor DeBeer (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Professor DeBeer: Here and here. Any more, and we'd probably be considered a pov-pushing conservative rag, instead of an encyclopedia. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Email Controversy

Recent edits removed well-sourced content which is not in doubt at this point (such as the deletion of emails from Clinton's server and the fact that classified information has been discovered on the server) while adding opinion from 3rd parties intended to cast the situation in a favorable light. I have restored the previous, long-standing language.

If this section is going to be expanded, it should be done in a way that accurately reflects the events of the situation. I would suggest that the main article on the subject would be a good place to start looking for content.

I would also suggest that the editor(s) making these changes seek consensus here before restoring them again.CFredkin (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

CaseyPenk's changes, to this section and others, tend to include some valid points but come wrapped in an obviously pro-HRC slant. The citations for those changes are also problematic (too many, not always highest quality, never formatted). The last go-around I tried to make use of some of CaseyPenk's points in this version of the emails section, but CFredkin reverted it saying it should be harmonized with the main article.

That idea – summary section of top article should be tied in some way with lead section of subarticle – or ones like it have been used in some other contexts, see WP:SYNC and PARTRANS for some examples and how it can be supported technically. The approach was also used for a while in a similar context as this back during the 2008 election cycle, see Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 6#Template. I'm really not a fan of the idea. I think sometimes the top article needs a different, more analytical approach than the lead of a subarticle, which tends to be more of a set-up for what follows. That's especially true for readers coming to the sub from the main – who wants to read the same stuff for a second time? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

references -- both on Benghazi and as a whole

Re this revert [7] -- I'm only partly familiar with WP on this type of thing. It would seem to me that we have an imbalance on the refs in the article as a whole, and Benghazi in particular. A search on "CNN" in the article brings up 19 hits; "Fox News" brings up one. That would appear to be out of balance. Additionally, the refs for that hearing all say something similar, though two out of three put it differently from the article. It is true that many sources say something along those lines, but not all -- In addition to Fox, see also ABC, which tells both sides. [8] User:Seraphimblade, could you comment? CometEncke (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In your edit, you seemed to be just adding an additional reference. That already has way too many crammed in there (there really should only be one reference per reference tag, let alone several), and only one or two references per statement. If you believe the article has neutrality issues, could you please state specifically what you do not believe is neutral, and what you'd suggest changing? Selection of references would not probably be that; Fox is reliable for some things but is not really the best reference in general. They are known for being quite partisan and sometimes not being too thorough in their fact checking, so it's a reference I think we rightly use sparingly and with caution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe the Benghazi section has neutrality issues. I started a section on it above. In particular, it does not directly mention "Innocence of Muslims." (henceforth IOM) Yet that was a key part of the story. Clinton's statements in regards to IOM appear in retrospect to have been calculated to leave herself without a "smoking gun" statement supporting the false narrative, yet at the same time, not to contradict that narrative, which at the time was being pushed hard, particularly by Janet Rice, during an election campaign. There are a lot of details which I won't repeat here; see [9] for a good, but not exhaustive, start. Yet we have an article that does not mention that Clinton failed to contradict the IOM narrative in the immediate aftermath of the attack, does not mention that it was being pushed hard by Janet Rice, who was ambassador to the UN, and therefore I assume reported to Clinton (correct me on that if I'm wrong), and does not mention that Clinton sent emails that referred to it as an attack. Yet the article does have room to talk about public reacton to the committee hearing and states those views were "widely held", which is supportable, though "widely" is not "universally"; see the ABC source if you have concerns about Fox. I think that's my concerns in a nutshell. CometEncke (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to change the Janet Rice page, it has nothing on Benghazi at all! 2600:1001:B11B:492C:887:E1ED:33EE:EA29 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That seems rather overly detailed. This is a biography of Hillary Clinton, not an article about the Benghazi attack, so a brief mention would seem to suffice for due weight. If you'd like to go into detail regarding that, you may want to see about that article. I certainly wouldn't support noting that someone "failed to contradict" something; that hints at unsupported wrongdoing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Susan Rice, got my Rice's mixed up. CometEncke (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

CometEncke, the question of what role the video played in the attack and in the response to the attack is not as clear-cut as you might think. One, fog of war is real. If there's one law that's true it's "first reports are always wrong". So it people give narratives or explanations that don't turn out to be correct, suspect the fog before you suspect intentional misrepresentation. Second, there are some who continue to feel that the video was in fact a contributing factor. See for example this long New York Times report from December 2013 which came from months of reporting (and appeared more than a year after the timeline you reference above). It says this: "Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines. One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser. The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests." As another rule, murky causations involving multiple factors and limited or conflicting data is more often the reality than causations that neatly fit politically convenient attacks or defenses.

As for Hillary emerging largely unscathed from the select committee hearing, this is the view of the large majority of sources. And that's the view that's been reinforced ever since – for example if you watched the CNN Town Hall from Iowa last night, the operative assumption of both Hillary and audience questioners at one point was that she came through that day well.

As for using Fox News as a source, I judge their reports on a case-by-case basis. The Mitt Romney article, which I'm also the main author of, uses Fox News in a number of places. But when it comes to Hillary they've lost their minds. I often listen to the radio simulcast of their 6 pm flagship news show with Bret Baier. Last week when everyone else's lead story was Palin endorsing Trump, their lead was something about Hillary emails. Then on Thursday when everyone's lead story was the approaching winter megastorm on the East Coast, their lead was another something about Hillary emails. Then on Friday when everyone's lead story was the storm now in progress over Washington, where the show happens to be broadcast from, their lead was ... yet another bit about Hillary emails.

And just fyi Seraphimblade, lumping multiple citations under one footnote is permitted under WP:Citation merging. I don't like piling on a bunch like this either, but sometimes it's necessary when text has been challenged like it has here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

How about if we keep the number of sources at 3, but swap ABC in for one of the others? That would still leave us with mostly sources saying HC did well in the hearing, which is a fair representation, but would also have a source that points to some of the issues, which is also fair. CometEncke (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A swap

Should we swap "Arab" and "U.N." here: "... in gaining the backing for, and Arab and U.N. approval of, the 2011 military intervention in Libya"?

How is Arab backing for intervention more important than the U.N. one as U.N. makes intervention(s)? --Obsuser (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Why does order in sentence necessarily imply importance or rank? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it actually does – a lot. It is a big difference if one says "He is Chinese and Arab producer..." compared to "He is Arab and Chinese producer...", for example. We can exclude "Arab" from this sentence at all I guess because if U.N. gives an approval then Arab one is not important because U.N. wouldn’t have given its approval if the other one had not been given + U.N. leads operation and stuff, not Arabs. --Obsuser (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory sentence

I noticed one contradictory sentence that opposes directly Clinton’s good relations with Obama mentioned before (or after) that sentence while translating this to .sr but cannot find it now; if someone finds it, it would be very good to have it corrected both on .en and .sr... It is somewhere between Benghazi attack and subsequent hearings and 2008 presidential campaign I guess, but it for sure before Benghazi attack and subsequent hearings section... --Obsuser (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggest enhance captions or lessen images

Four images have captions "Clinton in September 2014", "Clinton in February 2011", "Clinton in 2009", and "Clinton in 2015". (Not very informative. Either the captions s/b enhanced to describe the context and/or image relevance, or the number of them s/b reduced [else how do they not come off as fandom postings/not so "encyclopedic"?].) IHTS (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)