Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 27

Portrait
NOTE: All participants in the following discussion have !voted in the subsequent subsection. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It does make sense that we used the most recent official portrait for an article, such as for Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, for example. But in this case, she is out of office, but running for another office. Because of this, the reader who decides "I'll look up Hillary on Wikipedia" will see a portrait which is 6.5 nearly 7 years old. As an active candidate, actively campaigning, whose appearance has changed significantly (aging, weight) since the time of the portrait, the inclusion of the portrait I added (below) is pertinent. While taken at an event, it is very high resolution, high quality, in focus, and looks very professional (released by campaign), and her facial expression is smiling just like the official portrait. Strictly adhering to a 'official' preferred policy, in this case, detracts from the purpose of the article. While Jimmy Carter may have aged nearly 40 years from his info box portrait, the main purpose of his article is to enlighten over the subject of his life, whose height was a presidency from 1977-1981. But Hillary isn't retired and out of office, she is a current event. We use a 2015 photo of Jeb Bush for these same purposes.



 Spartan 7W  §  03:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. So we should not follow policy because you want people to see that HRC has been growing old and fat? Not that there is much different between the two photos, because there isn't. But your reasoning is beyond offensive. No. Dave Dial (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not what I'm saying. Truth is, people get old. Chris Christie could be called obese, but he has been losing weight. If we were to change pictures for him because of his appearance change, nobody would object. What I am saying is this: sometimes an exception to a policy can benefit a reader. To attack me and my perfectly legitimate rationale is simply petty. I am bringing about a genuine issue for discussion.  Spartan 7W  §  04:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Use the previous photograph. Use a recent photograph on the article on the current campaign.  This articles covers her full lifetime and should not obsess with the recent events, especially given that there are subarticles covering recent events.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Use official portrait from 2009. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm mistaken, the "most recent official portrait as top photo" approach isn't a rule but rather than informal guideline that's been adopted. I agree with it in general and argued for keeping the 2009 portrait at the top throughout her tenure as secretary even though some wanted a change.  But now it's been 6½ years and I would be inclined to a switch to a current one if a really decent possible photo appeared, and I think this one qualifies – she looks good and it was made available by the campaign.  (I've always thought that campaigns should release good quality portraits for use in WP.)  Unfortunately Spartan7W has since poisoned the well with the above aging and weight comments, which really really shouldn't be the point.   Wasted Time R (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a more relaxed, natural image of Clinton would be more appropriate, and better represent her. This image (right) from 2011 has a much less artificial look.  A cropped, less tall version with the right eye centered would be quite handsome and less staged-looking. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Prefer the current, representing the subject at the high point of her career. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't represent her at the high point of her career, no photo can do that. It just represents a rather artificially posed grimace that is quite unflattering.  I think we should use the most natural looking relatively image.  The one I have suggested is only four years old and presents her in a genuine light. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about File:Hillary Clinton official Secretary of State portrait crop.jpg? Whichever, way, I think you are quite confused.  The current is verifiably the official Secretary of State portrait, and it is more flattering.    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The above image I used isn't a pose. Look at the link on its commons page, you'll see I've cropped it. It is actually a candid shot.  Spartan 7W  §  05:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * She's looking straight at the camera, and "smiling" for it, although her eyes do not reflect a natural smile. That's the definition of a pose. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional Comment (I !voted above): Neither image is particularly flattering. The recent one is pretty terrible and much more unflattering (not that she's older or heavier -- really who cares? -- but that she looks like she's been hit by a stun gun) than the official portrait. In light of that fact, the official portrait wins, unless a better image is put forth. In terms of the 2011 shot someone just posted above -- it's not facing forward, and it would need to be cropped top and right to center the image. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - As stated on my talk page, political figures are not pop culture icons; with their bios, we should aim for more of an air of professionalism rather than "Where Are They Now?" images. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Prefer the photo proposed by Spartan7W as being most current and least WP:PROMOTIONAL. LavaBaron (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't a where are they now as Tarc would suggest. If this were such an attempt by me, I would update every out of office politician with new pictures, I don't.  Right now, I want to help build an encyclopedia which thoroughly and efficiently covers the U.S. presidential elections, and U.S. government, and do so in a uniform, standardized way. So no for Bill Clinton, Bush 43, etc. But in this case, she is out of office, yes. But she is actively campaigning for a very high public office. Perhaps my word choice wasn't everybody's favorite, but she does look different than she did in 2009, 6 almost 7 years ago. People will look her up on this site to read about her, they'll hear about her on the news and look her up. She isn't a past or current officeholder, she is one seeking an office. They go to secretary of state, they'll see her portrait.  If she wins, we'll put up a new portrait from the White House. If she loses, we can revert to the state dept., her highest and last office.  Spartan 7W   §  23:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not agree with the potential assertion by that presenting a current picture that presents a person as "old and fat".  Neither do I agree with the view of  that the earlier picture presents an "artificially posed grimace".  I think that it is possible for a picture of a person later in years to show dignity, states(wo)manship and experience.  I also think that readers coming to the article right now will likely be doing so in regard to the developing of understandings of a presidential candidate and not of just a former Senator and Secretary of State.  I also dispute reference to high point in career and think that her being in a serious contender for the top job in the U.S. and the potential of being the countries first woman president is pretty significant.  Personally I think that there are merits in both options but favour the use of well presented current picture.  GregKaye 07:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, that was not Dave Dial's assertion, potential or otherwise. He was responding to Spartan7W's perhaps unintentional, but nonetheless offensive comment(which he's walked back a bit) bringing age and weight into the conversation. (Also, note that she was "a serious contender for the top job in the U.S." in 2007/8 too.) Tvoz / talk 19:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To say that it is possible for a portrait in their old age to be dignified is not to say that these portraits are dignified--and I thing the hit with a stun gun comment gets it smack on the head. I did say when I proposed it that the candid 3/4 profile picture would need to be cropped, but I don't have the time to go through our cumbersome upload process to do that myself unless people support the idea. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are going to say 'hit with a stun gun', then I would say the State Dept. picture is equally 'tasered'. If you go on YouTube, look up Hillary's campaigning in Iowa, you'll see this is a candid shot, this is how she smiles. She smiles like this in most pictures. I think Greg has it right in the proper line. More people still visit Bill Clinton's article than hers; those who come here are largely doing so, for she is a prominent candidate for President.  As to Dave Dial's comment, no it wasn't offensive, it was a fact. If we changed Chris Christie's to reflect his weigh loss, nobody would object.  Spartan 7W   §  20:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bill's article having a larger viewership than Hillary's is not a problem we are trying to solve here, because it is not a problem. Consider these readership figures for last month:  George H. W. Bush 163,000; George W. Bush 222,000; Jeb Bush 123,000.  A one-term president who has been out of office for almost a quarter of a century gets more views than a lead-pack presidential candidate who's in the news on a regular basis.  That's the readership power of actually having held the office.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Options for top photo
The top photo is about 6.5 years old. To ensure good selection of top photos, similar Wikipedia article talk pages include a gallery of options (see Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee). I am not aware that such a gallery has been presented at this talk page, so I'm presenting it below.

As someone mentioned above, the "most recent official portrait as top photo" isn't a rule but rather an informal guideline. It's not commonly followed with respect to current presidential candidates if the picture is so old as this one. It's time for a switch to a current or much more recent one. Feel free to add images to this gallery if they are post-Secretary-of-State. This gallery is not fixed in stone, and new photos can be added that do not even exist yet. However, images should not be a view from below (idolizing), and should not be facing away from the Wikipedia article text.


 * My first choice would be Image 5, and then Image 1.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Prefer official portrait, i.e. #2. We should strive to be more respectable/professional and worry less about being timely/topical, in regards to photos esp in the infobox.  Candids are ok for Justin Bieber, not politicians. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 6 is also an official portrait, and Image 7 is a much more recent official State Department photo (though not an official portrait).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you kinda added #6 & #7 after I commented, so I really can't be faulted for not taking those into account... Tarc (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't fault you for that. You can take them into account or not, as you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Aesthetically, I like #5 the best, but #2 seems the most encyclopedic. #3, #4, and #7 seem too fleeting (and the background glare in #7 is distracting). #1 seems a bit too posed, to me. All told, I would go with #2. bd2412  T 23:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd keep the picture as it is now (number 2 on your list) as the sole picture. A gallery in an infobox seems quite distracting and deemphasizes some of the data both in the infobox and in the article's lead (as the eye will be drawn to the gallery). Randy Kryn 23:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting to put a gallery in the infobox. 😊Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

How about this as an option which conveys a recent photo of a thoughtful person? Perhaps not as dynamic as some of the other options.
 * Prefer #2, current, representing the subject at the high point of her career. As discussed above, Talk:Hillary_Clinton --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep it as it is (IE #2) - As far as I know for politicians it's legit taken images and personally I prefer it over the rest. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that option 7 is an official picture because, with the reflected glare of the flash/backlighting in the woodwork, glasses and eyes, etc. it looks, to me, really amateurish. I would prefer a modern photo but the recent photos (collected by Wikipedia) seem of comparatively low quality. Is it possible that we can do better? GregKaye 11:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 5, then image 2 then image 3, then Image 1 - Recent images are obviously better than older ones. Official images for politicians (e.g. image 2) seem like the norm. What would be really ideal is some updated version of image 2. Failing that, I think image 5 is probably best. Image 1 looks a bit too much like a publicity shot. NickCT (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Could this one be a contender? I can't tell whether it's free. I know it's not great. Little dark. NickCT (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care for the composition, as she is turned a bit too far to the side. bd2412  T 20:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Number 2 is the proper choice based on other politician pages. 1 is the best overall picture for technical quality and recentism, but it's not official. Based on other pages, it looks like official pictures are the way to go. Outside of that, I would vote 1.12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Image 1 would be my preference but 2 is ok, as the most recent official portrait. FWIW, #1 is from a 2015 campaign appearance, doesn't seem to be posed in its original, un-cropped form. I think it's the best of these options. Tvoz / talk 16:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 1 Most recent, subject is facing forward, and it's the most flattering of the other recent choices. The official senate photo is dated, she no longer really looks like she did when that photo was taken. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm also okay with 1 or 2 but neither is what we really want. It's annoying that this is now the third presidential election cycle where this keeps coming up – unless someone is a sitting federal official, we can't manage to show a reasonably current, professional quality formal portrait as the top image.  To this day, Mitt Romney and Ann Romney, both of whom are very photogenic people, have awful bad-angle shadowy photos at the top of their articles.  The ones for Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb are official but from 2005 and 2006, even staler than the Sec State photo here.  Some of the current Republican candidate ones taken at conferences aren't too bad, but others are.  At Talk:Jeb Bush they've had a long debate over which not-good choice to use.  The one for Scott Walker (politician) is inappropriate for a top photo.  The one for Mike Huckabee has got a weird feel to it.  The one for Chris Christie is okay for later in the article but suffers by comparison with the smiles in portraits.  The one for Jim Gilmore looks like he's about to fall backwards out of his chair.  The one for Donald Trump makes him look like a mean-spirited egotistical jerk ... well, okay, good job there.  But you get the point.  The powers that be at WMF should contact all the campaigns and get them to provide a good recent formal portrait with the right licensing that we can use.  It would be our interest and the candidates too.  The only one that seems to have done this is John Kasich, whose top photo is an OTRS of his state official photo.   Why can't someone get the others to do this too?  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 1 is most recent, has good lighting, centers subject's portrait, and is rather neutral in appearance.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments on all images (SmokeyJoe (talk))
 * Image 1 Looks like a candid photo taken during a specific interaction. Looking at the source, it is a long lens photo, taken over tea, from a photographer the subject was unaware of.  Not a professional photograph.  Notable for the event, this is a suitable photo for Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, or for somewhere in the body of this article to illustrate (but without significant contribution) early campaigning for 2016.
 * Image 2 Looks like a purposefully composed and present image for official public identification. More than suitable for the top level biography as it represents the subject at the high point of her career, and is so obviously recognizable and identifying.
 * Image 3 Looks like a captured reaction to something someone said.
 * Image 4 Looks tired, trying to explain or respond to something tedious.
 * Image 5 Looks like a captured reaction to a joke
 * Image 6 Like #2 but even older.
 * Image 7 Looks like an unexpected weekend hotel wikipedia-paparazzi shot of a public figure who doesn't provide PD images.
 * Image 8 Looks like someone's long lens souvenir shot.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Image 2,Image 6, Image 1 ( in order of preference ). While I agree with much of the above, the one other thing that stands out to me is the direction Hillary is facing in the picture. Given that the infobox is in the upper right of the page ideally the image should be either looking forward of slightly angled towards the left. If the image is looking away from the page it pulls the eyes of the reader away from the text. Image 1 isn't that bad but has a slight rightward focus away from the page but it is subtle and mostly is looking straight forward. Image 2 is looking forward but body language is towards the text. Image 3 is looking away from the text and the facial expression captured in the photo obscures the eyes and the out of context smirk also implies a slight slyness which seems to be against NPOV. Image 4 again is facing away from the text, appears to be a low quality image cropped from a video and the subject is slightly lost against the noisy backdrop; further the facial expression displays a weariness that doesn't seem appropriate for a BLP. Image 5 has the focus away from the page, the facial expression again obscures the eyes though not as bad as number 3. Image 6 has the body facing slightly towards the text while the face is facing forward; however it does feel a bit flat. Image 7 has the focus towards the text, and the expression is not bad, but the glare is a bit of a problem; further I question if the main infobox image should be one where she wears glasses if she is commonly seen without them. ( random searching online less than 25% of the images I saw had glasses -- When I searched for just "Hillary" and "Hillary Clinton" I got almost 25%, while I got less than 5% searching "Hillary Rodham Clinton ). Image 8 is facing away from the text, too much of the face is hidden, and the background is too noisy. PaleAqua (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 2 or Image 6a  - I think the most prominent image for a politician should be a portrait; others could of course be used below. Image 6 may be an official portrait, but it looks like it could easily have been taken impromptu in a hallway as she was on her way to a meeting. It also suffers from a shortage of contrast or saturation or something. I have added a re-crop as Image 6a, as a solution to both problems. While conventional wikiwisdom seems to favor more recent photos, I question that in this case. The article is about her entire life and career, not about the past few years, so recency seems far less important than it might be for someone who became notable, say, three years ago. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 6a, while being a good quality portrait, and obviously suitable for United States Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, is eclipsed by #2, being of similar quality, more recent, and from a higher point career-wise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Points taken. If she gets elected, a White House portrait will be the obvious choice, so the same reasoning would apply here. 6a stricken. 2 seems a bit too dark, at least on my computer. I think File:Secretary Clinton 8x10 2400 1.jpg would be an improvement, but I won't bother creating a 2a unless someone expresses interest. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Image 1(!!!) but 2 and 7 are alright: Number 1 is the most recent and I would say the highest quality. Clinton is facing the camera and the lighting hits her face quite well. PrairieKid (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 2 – Irrespective of when this photo was taken, it is not like someone will have difficulties recognising that it is of Hillary Clinton. Indeed, this image still has clarity, and looks fine. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 10:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - As a bit of an after thought to my earlier comment; I think I want to specifically oppose image 2. This is a very high profile individual. Having an image which is 6 years old for her, and arguably doesn't convey a true likeness doesn't seem right. NickCT (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - I respectfully disagree with the weight you would give to the age of the image. For someone who is 9 years old, a picture that is 6 years old would clearly be far out of date. That's not so much the case for someone over 60. bd2412  T 02:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that there is no policy basis for any of this, and there's really no way for a closer to objectively weigh the arguments, I think they will necessarily end up counting votes. That makes something like this problematic, since it's essentially a second vote. Should the closer subtract 1 from Image 2's tally here? Should others cast second votes against one or more choices we don't like? I don't feel this is hair-splitting at all. Maybe your Oppose would be better framed as a Comment? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "no policy basis for any of this" - WP:MUG maybe? "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light.". Fact is, that if you have a BLP about a 50 year old, and you use a picture of them at 15, you are "presenting a false light".
 * re " Maybe your Oppose would be better framed as a Comment?" - Fine.
 * - re "That's not so much the case for someone over 60" - I take your point. But the counter argument is that at some point the age of the image is going to be an issue, right? What's the cut-off? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? I just feel that for someone as high-profile as HC, there doesn't seem like there's a good excuse not to use a recent image. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 1. It's the most recent and it is a good quality image. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If a recent shot is required (I don't agree that it is for the infobox), then I think this, if cropped, is better than all others so far offered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 1 - most recent photo.--Polmandc (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 1 - Most recent and consistent photo. 'Nuff said. --TL22</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging those who participated in the preceding discussion thread but not in this more structured !voting. It's a bit much to ask anyone to analyze the discussion to determine how each person feels about this. If this were an RfC, this would be the Survey and that would be the Discussion. Some of the discussion resembles !voting, but not all, and it would work better to have it all in one place and in the same format. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 2. Official; does not have all of the awful problems of the others (even the 2015 one is bug-eyed). Second option would be Image 1. Softlavender (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 7 because (a) recent, (b) front-facing, (c) headshot - no other image meets those three best practices for infobox images LavaBaron (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 2- It's the last official portrait of HRC, and most encyclopedic. Dave Dial (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 2- this is the way to go, it's an attractive official portrait, but not a strained pose. I like 2,3,& 5.  Again, I find 1 unnatural, and 4 & 7 are quite unflattering.  Image 6 looks airbrushed. If this is to be a determinative vote, it should be in two stages, with a runoff between the top two vote getters after the first round. μηδείς (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was wondering about that. Based on a weighted scoring of my own devising (thank you), 1 and 2 have a huge lead over the others, with 53% for 2. If there is to be a runoff, we might as well save time and start it now. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a vote in that manner, really. To change the main image on a BLP article there should be consensus. The image is already there, so there would have to be a clear consensus to change it. Dave Dial (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 1 This is a candid photo, gets as close to a smiling portrait in quality and composition as any spontaneous shot may get. Others are old, grainy, poorly lit, or poorly composed.  Spartan 7W  §  21:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Time to close?
By my weighted scoring, 2, the status quo ante, has 50.7% as of Spartan7W's !vote. Thus, 49.3% favors a change. says above, "To change the main image on a BLP article there should be consensus. The image is already there, so there would have to be a clear consensus to change it."

I see three potential reasons not to close now with no consensus for change.
 * You dispute Dave Dial's reasoning.
 * You want more information about my scoring.
 * You think this might reach a consensus for change given more time. (What %?)

Even if it reached a consensus for change, there would need to be a runoff between 1 and 2, and 2 could still win that. The others aren't even in the running at this point, and that's extremely unlikely to change.

Comments? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Close it up as no consensus to change. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Some mention of Iran?
The Iran deal is highly placed in the current news cycle, and it has been noted in various sources that it was built on a foundation established by Clinton as SOS. Is that worth mentioning here? bd2412 T 14:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think No. The sourcing is too new.  No, do not destabilize this article by constantly adding news sourced materials, and removing them later as they fade in the longer perspective, especially when there are multiple sub articles to add such coverage.


 * HRC as SOS and the current Iran deal (currently the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action?!) should first have reasonable coverage in one or more of the following:
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
 * Political positions of Hillary Clinton
 * Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
 * before it is worth considering adding to the main biography. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added a brief mention of it here, and a bigger mention of it in the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State detail article. I completely agree with SmokeyJoe's hesitation to add news events, which is partly why I never addressed Iran relations much in these two articles before – there was no way of knowing how it would turn out.  Well, we likely won't know for years how the Iran deal plays out, but we do know now one was reached, and that is pretty significant in and of itself, since it represents a significant {breakthrough, gamble, capitulation – take your pick} on the part of the Obama administration.  So on balance I think a brief mention of it here is warranted.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Wasted Time R, thanks, I agree with your assessment. I am not proposing anything more than a mention. @SmokeyJoe, there are flash-in-the-pan events and there are enduring historical events. Even if it fails, the achievement of a deal through negotiations with Iran is in the latter category. bd2412  T 02:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wasted Time's edits to the two articles are very good.  There is more to it than I realized.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Persondata
Re: this edit

Given this RfC consensus, and the corresponding note in, it would seem less controversial to simply remove the Persondata. Since WP:BOLD does not apply in this article at this time, I'm discussing first. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means, remove - per community consensus not to have this in any article. bd2412  T 03:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ I call that overwhelming support! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

POV piping
Edits 1, 2, and 3

You'll note that Lewinsky scandal is the article title, this is not a redirect. If you feel that's POV, please take it up at Talk:Lewinsky scandal with an eye toward a move to something more neutral. Otherwise, simply linking to an article by its title is neutral by definition. Also please don't edit war. And what's with the "pooopface" in your revert? I have reverted that part. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the rest. "... following her husband's infidelity in 1998" is simply inaccurate; the infidelities with Lewinsky were during 1995–97, not 1998, and there was at least one admitted infidelity with another woman before that (Gennifer Flowers).  Furthermore it wasn't just the infidelity itself that was so difficult, but that the whole thing became so sordid and public and the subject of investigations and eventually impeachment.  That was the Lewinsky scandal, that occurred during 1998, and that is what should be in the lead and has been for a long time.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

AfD of note

 * Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies.

Neutral notice being places on both Talk:Bill Clinton and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton Tarc (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Favorability ratings
, I realize presidential campaigns are all in the news, but the place for an extended discussion of a candidate's current favorability ratings, with quotes included from pollsters, is in their campaign article, not in their main BLP article. As it happens the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article does not have anything on this subject, so what you added here should instead be added there. A picture is worth a thousand words, and the HRC Gallup Poll ratings 1992-2015 chart image in this section has been updated as of last night with the latest figures. So everyone can see that her latest data point has higher negatives than positives. (Refresh your browser cache if you don't see it – it's control-F5 on Firefox for example.) I've been updating this chart (and its predecessors) for seven or eight years now, and it uses Gallup favorability/unfavorability ratings for consistent comparisons within one polling methodology. That's why I don't want to mix in Pew polling numbers.

The text I added in the section is sufficient to the point:


 * "Her favorability ratings dropped, however, after she left office and began to be viewed in the context of partisan politics again,[435] and by July 2015, with her 2016 presidential campaign underway, her ratings slumped to the same kind of closely divided levels as seen in her 2008 presidential run.[436]"

The text you added after that:


 * "Her favorability ratings began to decline, however, after she left office to run for president in 2016 election, and she began to be viewed in the context of partisan politics again,[435] and by May 2015 her ratings had dropped below 50%.[437] The results of polling and analysis conducted by the Pew Research Center published May 19, 2015, found that Clinton's "ratings today (49%) are at the lowest level since her last presidential race in 2008,"[437] and Gallup favorability poll results published in July 2015 found that: "Clinton's rating has slipped to 43%, from 48% in April. At the same time, Clinton's unfavorable rating increased to 46%, tilting her image negative and producing her worst net favorable score since December 2007.[438]

goes into unnecessary details and unnecessary quotes. We don't need exact percentages in the text, nor exact dates of polling. This article is about the broad sweep of her life; the chart covers 23 years; and we don't need a lot of attention to any one data point. The campaign article is the place to track detailed campaign developments, not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that detail of current favorability ratings would be WP:UNDUE  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, grant your points. Let's also, then, based on your same premises and rationale, take out all the rest of the puff-piece, peacock favorabilty stuff about her image over the years included in that section. --- Professor JR (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not how editing on this project (which if you need a reminder is a privilege, not a right) works, you can't pull a "if I can't get what I want then I'm taking away what you like too!" shtick. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Cultural and political image
Why adding the Peacock tag to that section? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Partisan editing, it would appear. Tvoz / talk 06:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph
Talk:Rick_PerryAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2015
Please change the religion of him...

http://www.ncscooper.com/hillary-clinton-converts-to-scientology/

She converts to scientology religion.

187.44.92.33 (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you already know this, but the Nevada County Scooper is satire. And let's be honest, Scientology is probably meant to be satire too. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox title
When the article was originally protected for 2 weeks, it was in the middle of an edit war. By chance, it was protected in a state where it said "Hillary Clinton" in the infobox. However, the state prior to the dispute was "Hillary Rodham Clinton". If there is no consensus to change, then that would mean there was no consensus to change from "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Omnedon (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but my revision to that effect was reverted, and it seems that another revert war is in the works if I re-revert. Unfortunately, the closing admin for the discussion did not take that step, and seems not to want to bother with the matter any further, so the next step is probably to post a request at ANI. bd2412  T 00:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I definitely sensed agreement with my point that "Hillary Rodham Clinton", as a very commonly used form of her name, in ongoing media coverage, and especially in quality sources, should appear above the fold somewhere, and that having it at the top of the infobox was well-supported and satisfies this, and it is the status quo ante. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That a 'no consensus' freezes the infobox title at HC simply means the luck of the draw (the title was changed back and forth, back and forth, like a yo-yo) prevails. In all fairness, if 'no consensus' is the determination then the full name - Hillary Rodham Clinton - should be permanently put back. "The Luck of the Draw" really shouldn't determine this issue, and again, in fairness, it should probably be taken back to where it was before any of the various discussions and edit warring took place. Randy Kryn 5:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with these comments completely. There is an AN/I open here, and the RFC closer reiterates there that this should be determined by the editors here. What he neglects to acknowledge, oddly, is the edit warring that brought us to the point of needing the RFC. This is circular, to say the least. Tvoz / talk 05:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein has clarified his meaning at ANI. Basically: no consensus. Per WP:NO CONSENSUS we stick with the status quo ante (HRC, which was the heading for years until some editors began an edit war to force a change, which precipitated the RFC) until a consensus for change emerges. I have restored HRC as the infobox heading. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

General Issues regarding article redaction
The word "first" appears 147 times in this article. Is that a record? Agcala (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering she was First Lady of Arkansas and the U.S., many of these uses are unavoidable. If you see places where sentences could be reworded, please make the edits or suggest them to us to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And in addition to that, she really has had a lot of first's in her career. And she may well get more – first female major-party nominee, or first female president, or  or first person to lose a national election due to a bad messaging technology choice.  We'll have to see.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The email controversy is in the wrong section
My bold edit was reverted by and I was directed to previous discussions. In addition to what I believe were improvements to grammar and sentence structure, I moved the email controversy sections to the bottom of the U.S. Secretary of State section, where it seems to belong - (see this version )

I'm puzzling over the reasoning for having an oddball miscellaneous section called Clinton Foundation, e-mails issue, and other activities. (sort of like "Monkey, grapefruits, and things found on a Chevrolet", to my ears). This was previously discussed here Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 25. I'm pinging and  who were involved in this previous discussion. From a reader's perspective, I find it jarring to read about this relatively major controversy outside of the context of the part of Mrs. Clinton's career in which it happened. - MrX 19:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think it should be a sub-sub section inside the SoS section. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The email controversy deals with her time as SoS. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I can't speak for another user, but I am going to assume/surmise that what Tvoz intended was just the reversion of Professor Jr's inappropriate addition of the latest up-to-the-second reporting on the e-mail controversy, and your changes got caught in the crossfire. Working with the now-restored short and concise intro to the e-mail affair, I don't think there'd be an objection to re-adding the sub-header.  But I could be wrong. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The email controversy stems from actions while Secretary of State but has gone well beyond it. However, I agree with Mr. X that "This, That, and Some Other Things" is not the best way to organize a section. Jonathunder (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to just go with what these fine folks just said. That said, I'm sure this "relatively major controversy" will eventually be downgraded to "relatively minor fauxtroversy" at some point in the future, since it is now becoming rather obvious the "issue" wasn't really that much of an issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that while the email issue concerns itself with Clinton's time as Secretary of State, the controversy surrounding it does not. It has become more of a campaign issue, and consequently does not lend itself well to a timeline-based article. The controversy is well and properly covered in its own article, so I think it would be better remove all mention of the email issue in the current section, and then add this to the end of the penultimate paragraph in the "Events of 2011–13 and overall themes" section: Throughout her time as Secretary of State, Clinton continued to use her own private e-mail address and server, rather than departmental ones. The practice would later gain widespread public attention. As with the current election campaign, the matter is better served with its own article and it would be silly to explore it in this one. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have restored my re-organization and minor copy edits from yesterday, based on my reading of rough consensus to do so. I have no objection to paring the email controversy content down to a few sentences, but I think 's proposal goes a little too far. There needs to be more context than can be accomplished in one sentence. - MrX 16:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's my counterproposal:
 * I struggle to make it any shorter than this.- MrX 17:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Waaay too much detail. This is an article about the notable aspects of Hillary Clinton's entire life, so I fail to see how it is important in that context that Pagliano invoked the Fifth. Historical perspective is needed here, and it is clear we are devoting far too much attention to this matter before we even know how significant it will be. Let the separate article be the place for specifics. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I think the version that you just edited is fine. - MrX 23:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I think the version that you just edited is fine. - MrX 23:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia an encyclopedia?
I always thought that Wikipedia was to be an encyclopedia! This article shows Wikipedia's bias and double standard of article writing and editing. The entire first section (four paragraphs are uncited. The article has too few citations and references to back it up. This BLP article should be nearly perfect and cited/referenced up the gazoo due to the subject seeking the democratic nomination for POTUS. The article reads like a political pamphlet from the earliest days of the 20th century. (I will allow others to decipher that statement themselves.) In short, I can honestly say that Wikipedia is NOT worth the bandwidth in which it consumes if it allows this important article to stand as it is. What a waste of electricity and the stench of an article! The wikipedians responsible for this article should be ashamed of themselves for producing such trash, as they have in this propaganda that can only serve as a life raft to a drowning candidate. Wake up Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE98:1510:E92E:1366:D68C:6B65 (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead isn't supposed to have citations per WP:LEADCITE. The article has 434 unique inline citations, so it's hardly undercited. If you have any specific complaints, let us know what they are and we can address them. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Classified Emails
Content regarding the discovery of classified information on Hillary's email server was reverted with the statement that it's not supported by sources. The discovery of classified information and the potential legal implications are arguably the most salient aspects of the situation and have been extremely widely covered by reliable sources. Adding POV tag.CFredkin (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "discovery of classified information on Hillary's email server" (prior to handing it over no less!) is not covered by the quoted source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * From the source:
 * "Those two emails were among four that had previously been determined by the inspector general of the intelligence community to have been classified at the time they were sent."
 * "The inspector general for the intelligence community had told Congress that potentially hundreds of classified emails are among the cache that Clinton provided to the State Department."
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton will turn over the personal email server she used while serving as secretary of state to the Justice Department, her campaign spokesman said Tuesday." (First sentence of article!)CFredkin (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to have left out the sentence following the first quote there, which reads the "State Department disputes that the emails were classified at that time".  Taking a line from a reliable source and presenting it as if it was an incontrovertible fact while omitting the counterpoint that notes there is another point-of-view on the matter is stretching the Assume-Good-Faith-o'-Meter. Tarc (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an incontrovertible fact: The IG's found classified information in her emails.  That's not say that the State Department's claim that the information wasn't classified at the time it was sent shouldn't be added as well. However, we should probably then also mention the fact that many reliable sources have reported that at least some of the classified information was classified by default, without needing to be labeled as such.CFredkin (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)  Here's an example.CFredkin (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Despite that tropes found in your favorite cNCIS/CSI/Homeland crime prodecural drama, what is and what is not classified is not a simple either/or black/white matter. See Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email, particularly the comments of Mr. John Kirby of the State Department.  If a source states that there is another opinion on a matter, then it is by definition not an "incontrovertible fact".  I would suggest that you not misrepresent sources going forward. Tarc (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph in the source you provided above states: "A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said." Kirby's statement doesn't make that any less true.CFredkin (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Since Tarc seems to have veared into the realm of personal attacks, I think it's time for a third party opinion.....User: NeilN, if you have a moment, would you mind weighing in on this dispute?CFredkin (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, a third party opinion thinks it's time you took a permanent vacation from this topic, for either purposeful or negligent misrepresentation of sources. Dave Dial (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly demonstrating how out you have misrepresented a source by cherry-picking what supports your position and omitting what contradicts is it not a personal attack, I'm afraid. An opinion was presented as fact, and you were called out on it. Tarc (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Outrageous cherry picking. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, I didn't place the statement there to begin with. It was first removed on the 13th with the comment: "removed part of sentence not covered by source".  As I've indicated repeatedly above, "it" has indeed been covered by a multitude of reliable sources.  I'm not objecting to the inclusion of claims by Hillary's campaign or the State Department.  In fact, I believe we should include all the well-reported facts of this incident:  like the fact like the fact that the FBI is conducting an investigation (we certainly don't want to call it a "criminal investigation") of the situation.  However removing the fact that multiple IG's and an intelligence department review have concluded that classified information was stored on Hillary's personal email server is not enhancing the credibility of the project.CFredkin (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of poor treatment of secret service agents
According to this article about a new book about the Secret Service, Ms Clinton is not very nice to the help. Add to the article? Cla68 (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Cherry picked polling data
This edit ] is a cherry-picked polling data point, and it is WP:UNDUE without other polling data being used in that section. Tagged accordingly. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. This content has no legitimate place in this article.- MrX 17:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the data: 178 out of 1,563 registered voters responding to the survey chose "liar" as a word to describe Clinton. Using that data point to write that "When asked to provide one word that came to mind regarding Clinton, the number one response was 'liar'" is disingenuous and WP:UNDUE. We are in silly season and should edit with caution. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ^That pretty much sums it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagicMarker (talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Quinnipiac is a polling organization and the poll results were widely covered in reliable sources.CFredkin (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be fair to say the sample size of this poll was very small, and the point Cwobeel is making is that the way it has been put into the article makes it seem of greater import than it actually is. That said, various sources (almost exclusively the Beltway media) have similarly inflated the importance of the poll. Given the minuscule sample size, I think it would be better to leave it out of the article in favor of more traditional polling data (who would you vote for and favorability/unfavorability). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1500+ is well within normal size for national polls. The other poll numbers already in the article are based on sample sizes as much as 2/3 smaller than this one. The poll is reliable, it was picked up by reliable sources. This is teh very definition of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and its exclusion is ludicrous. Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidatesGaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (I'm new here, so please bear with me if I'm failing to follow any particular customs.) There's a fair amount of polling on public perception of all presidential candidates, including whether voters view a particular candidate as "honest" and "trustworthy." Perhaps of the sources that discuss this particular poll, one discusses other polling data showing similar public sentiments? The prior sentence discusses her favorability ratings falling as her presidential campaign began - why not elaborate with another brief sentence or two that elaborates on that public perception of her? Myrddin Reborn (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

rfc - quinnipiac "liar" poll
Should The Hillary Clinton BLP article mention the national polling results that 61% of respondents consider her to be untrustworthy, and that the most commonly used word to describe her was liar. (wording, placement TBD)

Poll Primary Source : http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274

Secondary sources :  

Survey

 * strong include reliable polling firm, large sample size (2.5% margin of error) covered by craploads upon craploads of reliable sources. WP:DUE and WP:NPOV clearly mandate inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose as pointed out above we're talking about "178 out of 1,563" respondents in the poll choosing the word "liar". Picking this one poll, where there isn't other polling data to balance it out, seems to be an effort to discredit her, failing WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not here It's questionable for a campaign article, which this isn't. TheMagicMarker (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose to include cherry picked poll. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose including this as an isolated fact. If it can be weaved in with some other content in support of a paragraph about the broader public perception of dishonesty, then it might be able to be used.- MrX 20:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose That kind of thing is not what Wikipedia is for. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:UNDUE. We include overall polling data to some extent. We don't get into the details of every individual poll. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Include to the extent that polling data is included in other BLP's.CFredkin (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. One important implication of WP:BLP is that we should not present a passing result of one poll at one point in time as though it were a meaningful characterization of the subject's life. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with statements above regarding cherry-picking. Frankly, polls in the run up to the election are going to be a dime a dozen. Are we to mention them all? Maybe we summarize them in a different article, but not on Clinton's BLP. NickCT (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Primarily for the reasons stated by, , and especially .  (I think Tryptofish summed it up best.) Richard27182 (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Largely per MelanieN and Tryptofish. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per undue weight. TFD (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We can find polls that say all kinds of things. The numbers change all the time.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
The lead sentence of WP:UNDUE says Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. There are many many sources that have used this poll and the liar association. What proportion of sources discredit the poll in the fashion that you imply? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? This is silly season, but that does not mean we need to join the chorus -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I look forward to hearing you use that argument on the conservative politician articles. Could you please explain in what way this poll was cherry picked? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are 100's of polls, and every other week we have another one. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Do 178 people comprise a "significant viewpoint"? Or do you mean the media? Yes, the media will run with anything negative about Hillary Clinton; they've done that for over 20 years, and it's full steam ahead while she's a presidential candidate. We're not the media's mouthpiece. If we include enough polling data to truly be representative, this article would be bogged down. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that some of the same editors who've spent prolonged periods camped at Fiorina's biography insisting that every negative opinion about Carly be inserted there are the first to run to this RfC and argue that any negative information be purged. If someone manages to get mentioned in a reliable source saying: "Carly is the worst ", you say it must be included in her bio because it's from a reliable source after all. After weeks of watching you push that line at Carly, I attempt to insert something negative about Hillary that indicates the impressions of a statistically significant sample of registered voters and that's out of line. I know, that's Carly's bio and this is Hillary's bio so we shouldn't be talking about Carly here. But you can't really expect us to believe that you're editing in good faith and in the best interests of the project when you consistently argue that different standards be applied at bios depending on the politician's party. Shame on you.CFredkin (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit harsh. Are there other bios on Wikipedia where we have stand alone paragraphs that read something like: "X% of registered voters indicated that they don't believe <person's name> is in a poll by . When asked to provide one word that came to mind regarding <person's name>, the number one response was " ". If you point them out, I will gladly fix them.- MrX 23:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. How about...

This edit at Fiorina where you restored the text saying of HP's partnership with Apple: "The project was considered a major success for Apple and a failure for HP." near the top of the section;

or this edit at Fiorina where you wanted to make sure the following phrase appeared at the top of the section on Fiorina's image: "Following her resignation from HP, several commentators ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time." as well as insisting that we say that "Fiorina and her husband lived in a 5,400-square-foot mansion" and that Boxer's campaign attacks regarding Fiorina's yachts be included;

or how about this lovely at Fiorina where you restored the following statement: "You couldn’t pick a worse, non-imprisoned CEO to be your standard-bearer."CFredkin (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the main point here is that the only reason to include the poll is to "insert something negative about Hillary" instead of discussing something that is an integral part of her views or history (as is the case in the Fiorina article in regard to her legacy at HP). I agree with both the inclusion of the negative parts of Hillary's career and the negative parts of Fiorina's career, but short-lived polling data that only serves to add negativity isn't something that I would agree to add to this or any other biography. Last I checked, we don't have any polling information at all on Fiorina in the article. TheMagicMarker (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, no one has ever suggested that Hillary has a credibility problem before this poll popped up (1, 2). And you're another example of an editor who's been parked at Fiorina's biography with an intensive focus on inserting anything negative you can find.CFredkin (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I picked a candidate to start my tenure here at Wikipedia with and improve the page, I picked Fiorina because I know the most about her. I resent that you think that my edits have all been negative. Re: Credibility problem: No one here is disputing that. TheMagicMarker (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oy. None of those examples have anything to do with polls, and each of them has appropriate context. As I suggested in the voting section above, the poll may be worth considering as supporting material for a larger analysis of the public's (or media's) perception that Clinton sometimes bends the truth.- MrX 00:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So it sounds like you're saying that you'll support the edit if I add more examples and sources and add more context about Hillary's credibility issues? Or would you be more comfortable if I can find some examples of notable people saying that Hillary was the "worst" Secretary of State in modern history?  That would probably be more comparable to your edits at Fiorina.CFredkin (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the second one, the balance of coverage is almost exactly the opposite. As to the first, that would depend on which issue (i.e. one of the ones where there is already a very long separate article). TheMagicMarker (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, Russia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq. They're all in a much worse state than before her tenure as Secretary of State.  Other than flying around a lot and talking a lot about women's issues, what did she accomplish?  The emerging consensus seems to be that her tenure as Sec of State is not going to work to her advantage in her campaign.CFredkin (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton%27s_tenure_as_Secretary_of_State TheMagicMarker (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. You seem to have a real problem with the subject of this BLP. I suggest you take a break from editing it. Dave Dial (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow... Repeating GOP talking points is not an argument. See WP:ADVOCACY -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow... Now all three editors I had in mind when I made the post above have responded and I didn't even have to call them out by name. Why is that do you think?CFredkin (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not support "the edit" that we're discussing, for the reasons that I already stated. If you have another edit to propose, I will give you my opinion once I see it. If a preponderance of reliable sources (not just Donald Trump) say that Clinton was the "worst" Secretary of State in modern history, then of course that should be included in the article, in some form. - MrX 01:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The first thing it says at the top of the page is that this is not a forum for debate about the subject of the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Providing raw data from polls is never a good idea. Polls can be inaccurate, methodology can be error or they can change.  Their value for this type of article is that writers of secondary sources can use them to determine public perception.  But they would look  at many polls, be aware of the circumstances and provide judgment.
 * Also, comparing this article to one for another presidential candidate is unhelpful. The reality is that writers of rs rate Clinton higher as Secretary of State than they rate Fiorina as a CEO.  Whether or not their judgment is accurate is not for us to decide.
 * TFD (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Lede
The lede should not be slanted to recent events. It should be a chronological presentation of this person's biography. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that it shouldn't suffer from recentism, but disagree with chronological. The lede should present information in the order of notability/importance. If there is enough info in the lede that chronology becomes a factor, its probably a sign that there is too much detail in the lede. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015
PLEASE UPDATE THIS COLOR CORRECTED IMAGE OF

108.54.119.29 (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There's no image there. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015
Please use the color corrected image. Current one is too Green/ Cyan.

Tedjasukmana (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The color is improved, but you also increased the luminosity levels to the point of loosing detail in some of her wrinkles, her teeth and the white parts of the flag. The overall effect appears washed out. Let me take a stab at just color balancing the original image and uploading it as a newer version.- MrX 01:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I color balanced the original image to remove the slight cyan cast. I also increased the gamma from 1.00 → 1.05. See what you think of that.- MrX 01:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. You make her too yellow / pale.  Adjust your monitor instead.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

hypothryroidism?
it doesnt seem like her hypothyroidism (fairly major mood altering disease) is mentioned anywhere in the wiki... http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/31/us-usa-election-clinton-health-idUSKCN0Q52BA20150731  can somebody add this? 74.197.131.45 (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a "fairly major mood altering disease" by any stretch of the imagination. Read about the symptoms and you will see it is of little significance, and certainly nothing worth mentioning here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Advertisement?
Is there some reason why this article suddenly earned an advert tag? If there is purely promotional content in the article it should be removed.- MrX 15:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is already removed apparently. I don't think such a tag is going to stick without consensus, which also won't happen.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  15:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That works for me.- MrX 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me too. should know better by now. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Some serious WTF-ittude coming from my direction right now. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FBI Investigation
How many reliable sources need to report on the FBI investigation of Clinton's handling of classified information before it's worthy of inclusion in this article?CFredkin (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a whole article on the subject, which this article points to already. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The content included here is not nearly representative of the information available on the issue.CFredkin (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is too soon to say whether this will amount to anything noteworthy. bd2412  T 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The mere fact of an FBI investigation is noteworthy by any normal, non-POV standards --- and as to "whether this will amount to anything noteworthy", either an indictment, or exoneration would also be noteworthy by most people's standards. --- Professor JR (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC) cc
 * Ridiculous. Maybe the FBI is just doing its due diligence and nothing will come of it. There's a whole article for this already, and there is no need to go into such much unnecessary detail... unless, of course, you are trying to push an agenda? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can be assured that the FBI is "doing its due diligence". As for "Maybe...nothing will come of it", that would be noteworthy, and greatly to Clinton's benefit. (And, please desist from the implied, personal accusations --- we're all just trying for good faith, non-POV encyclopedia quality here.) --- Professor JR (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, however, to Professor JR's added text, which succinctly identifies the fact. bd2412  T 17:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's superfluous, and it does not have the necessary context available in the full article, giving a false impression. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Most people wouldn't consider it unduly trivial if the FBI were investigating them, but apparently you feel it would be 'superfluous' if they were investigating you(?) --- and, we're not running for President --- at least I'm not. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you understood what the word "superfluous" means, you would be able to produce a response that makes some kind of sense. Since you don't apparently know, you have reduced yourself to edit warring again. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead of the main article on the controversy is a summary of that article per WP:LEDE, and a good summary here per WP:SUMMARY. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes a certain amount of sense. Nobody can possibly object to a cited version of that opening paragraph being used here, unless they were keen to push an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As someone once said: "At this point, what difference does it make?" --- Professor JR (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An obvious WP:NOTFORUM comment. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reports of the FBI investigation are well and widely-sourced. I don't understand why it wouldn't be mentioned here.CFredkin (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it is not mentioned in the main article's lead and it is UNDUE without the necessary context. That simple. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about the main article here.CFredkin (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, but we are talking about respecting WP:SUMMARY. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cwobeel and Scjessey on this. Summary style is indeed the point. And that neutrality banner misrepresents this discussion, unless there is an agenda for wanting to include more in this article at this time. Tvoz / talk 01:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * From here, it appears that there's an agenda involved in suppressing this information. The fact that the same group of editors has successfully suppressed the information in the main article isn't a valid reason for suppressing it here.CFredkin (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Is that so? I haven't suppressed anything, and in fact I haven't even edited the other article. One could say that the same group of editors who want to add as much negative material as they can into this BLP have an agenda. Oh yeah,  I said that above. Last time I checked, we were not a newspaper. If the FBI investigation turns up something of significance to HRC's life, then the  biography of her life will include it as part of the summary of the article dedicated to the minutiae of this matter.  Wait and see - there is no deadline, at least not one that is based on the encyclopedia's needs. Tvoz / talk 03:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And it is hard to imagine how CFredkin can think we are "suppressing" it when there's an entire article dedicated to it, documenting everything about the FBI investigation in exhaustive detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should've seen this coming. Faced with a consensus to use a cited version of the lede from Hillary Clinton email controversy here, ProfessorJR is now attempting to change the lede there, presumably to then echo the change here. Pretty shameless. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:POINTY comes to mind. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The reality is that the FBI is not conducting an formal investigation. It is a probe focused broadly on how possible classified material was handled. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Casually throwing around the word "investigation" in this forum is dangerous. The FBI has made no indication that it plans on launching a criminal inquiry. There's even a debate within the GOP ranks as to whether they should open a separate probe. Best to let the current "probe" run its course, then edit accordingly.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A new Politico article says that even while the FBI has stepped up interviews, the agency is still not labeling the scope of its probe as an investigation. See http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-probe-215630.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And neither should we. Tvoz / talk 17:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Healthcare
Misleading edit summaries are unacceptable, and so is stuffing negative quotes into references. Moreover, this article is about Hillary Clinton, so editors should not be trying to shoehorn negative POV aimed at the Bill Clinton administration into it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Professor JR continues to try to add this stuff that is specific to the administration of Bill Clinton, and not specific to the subject of this article. This has been going on for days now, with no attempt by this editor to engage in a talk page discussion about this disputed content. Per WP:BRD, Professor JR must seek consensus to add this controversial material. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is Hillary Clinton leaving out 'Rodham'?
Why is Hillary Clinton leaving out 'Rodham'? "Her campaign has told the Washington Post that she prefers to be just Hillary Clinton. Why?" Because Wikipedians left out 'Rodham'? I'm not sure we'll ever have a definitive answer to this question. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC) The sexist, right wing organization that calls itself the Associated Press have decided to drop "Rodham" when writing about her Calidum T&#124;C 18:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can guarantee you that the campaign decision is in no way influenced by Wikipedia. We may be influential, but we are not that kind of driver. In fact, our rename followed the real-world change in usage, not the other way around. bd2412  T 02:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So have The New York Times and other news organizations. — zziccardi  ( talk ) 19:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In both cases, the sources appear to be following the expressed preference of the subject herself, following an inquiry. The AP says "the campaign says to go with Hillary Clinton", and the NYT says "the Clinton campaign confirmed on Monday that Mrs. Clinton prefers to be simply, “Hillary Clinton,” aligning herself with the branding of her 2016 presidential campaign and the name she has signed to be placed on the ballots of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and other states". bd2412  T 19:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Closing, see talk page guidelines at top of this page. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added the above information to the note on the subject's name. At this point, I would actually suggest having a separate article on this, as the note itself is both longer and more fully cited than many articles I have seen. bd2412 T 22:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh. You guys want a cookie for being right? Ok, I would support a move now. If only because of the triangulation of politics from H R C. Dave Dial (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am genuinely proposing a separate article, like Names of Myanmar or Names of God. That way, the current lengthy note could be summarized in a single link, saving a few bytes from this article and letting the topic neatly be presented in another. bd2412  T 02:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)