Talk:Hillary Clinton
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillary Clinton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Q1: Was there a dispute about what the article title should be?
A1: Yes. From the early days on it was "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but over the years there were many formal requests for moves to change it to "Hillary Clinton". Discussions found no consensus on the article name until June 2015, when one found consensus and the article was moved to its current title. See the "This page was previously nominated to be moved" box elsewhere on this page for full details and links to the discussions – note some have to be revealed under the "Older discussions" link. There are strong feelings on both sides and discussions get progressively longer and more heated. Q2: The section on her 2016 presidential campaign leaves out some important things that have happened. What gives?
A2: The main article is tight on space and the presidential campaign section is intentionally brief and kept to what is biographically most relevant. The daughter article Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 has a much fuller treatment of the campaign and is where the greatest level of detail should go, especially anything describing the day-to-day, to-and-fro, ups-and-downs of a campaign. Q3: This article is POV! It's biased {for, against} her! It reads like it was written by {her PR team, Republican hatchet men}!
A3: Complaints of bias are taken very seriously, but must be accompanied by specific areas of concern or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements do not help editors. Edits that add {{pov}} tags without providing a detailed explanation on the talk page will likely be reverted. Q4: Where is the article or section that lists her controversies?
A4: There isn't one. All controversial material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article (including sometimes in Notes or footnotes) and in the various daughter articles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism and also raises significant WP:BLP concerns. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment – see here – and the same was done for other politicians' articles, including all the 2012 and 2016 candidates. This approach was also confirmed by the results of this AfD and this AfD. Q5: Something in the lead section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{citation needed}} tag on it.
A5: This article, like many others on Wikipedia, uses the approach of no citations in the lead section, as everything in the lead should be found in the body of the article, along with its citation. See guideline: MOS:LEADCITE. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Hillary Clinton was copied or moved into Legal career of Hillary Clinton with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Photo for infobox
editShould we update to any of the pics from the 2020s? The one from 2016 is... from 2016. That, and if you look at List of first ladies of the United States, there is another photo of Clinton being used.
Incumbent photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Hillary_Clinton_by_Gage_Skidmore_4_%28cropped%29.jpg
Suggestions:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Hillary_Clinton_53663388489_o_%281%29.jpg DougheGojiraMan (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- It depends on how recent you want to go. It's better to focus on a strong, high quality image with Clinton as the focus though, I think.
- I also propose the first image:
- File:Former United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the U.S. Department of State on September 26, 2023 in Washington, D.C. 14 (cropped).jpg
- But I also believe that crops of:
- File:Official Portrait of Former Secretary Clinton Unveiled at the U.S. Department of State on September 26, 2023 in Washington, D.C. 22.jpg
- &
- File:Official Portrait of Former Secretary Clinton Unveiled at the U.S. Department of State on September 26, 2023 in Washington, D.C. 21.jpg
- would work well.
- I think the first or third image would work best, with a lean towards the third one in my own personal preference. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I made a crop of the third image you proposed (File:Official Portrait of Former Secretary Clinton Unveiled at the U.S. Department of State on September 26, 2023 in Washington, D.C. 21 - Crop.jpg)
- I think it's better than the first image you gave as her smile seems slightly more natural than her smile in the first image. Of course, they are ultimately very similar images so it doesn't matter that much in the long run.
- I just hope we can update the lead image ASAP.
- Also, should the current lead image (Clinton in 2016) be moved down the article in the section about her 2016 presidential campaign? It seems it would fit. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes; it would probably be best to move that lead image down there.
- Activity on this article is very slow. Technically, it's consensus now that the image needs to be changed, but only a few people have voted. Somebody should bring this to other people's attentions. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I really like your first suggestion for the infobox. 3df (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support It is about time the lead image is changed. Either of them can work but @3df's suggestions are good too. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 21:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- That SMILE! Eughh! The old one is good 68.57.163.100 (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)