Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleHillary Clinton is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 21, 2019.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 7, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 21, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
February 28, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
May 27, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 18, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
June 6, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
December 13, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
September 24, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 7, 2015, November 7, 2018, and November 7, 2020.
Current status: Former featured article

2016 election

[edit]

Hillary Clinton called the 2016 election fraudulent claiming Russian interference. This claim was later proven false but her denial of the election results is omitted from her introduction. This is relevant because Donald Trump's introduction includes a lengthy paragraph about his claim that the 2020 election was fraudulent. 108.4.153.106 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is not accurate. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is proven. Moreover, Hillary conceded the 2016 election the next day. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your source that russian interference was proven? That has been debunked. 2600:1009:B12F:9F6F:A596:D146:6B11:7ADE (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article about how it is proven that I linked above has 606 unique inline citations, a further reading section, and relevant external links. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Just for the record, in case it comes up again – there's been a bit of back and forth in a sentence in the lead in the last few days:

  • Keeper of Albion changed "despite winning the popular vote" to "while winning the popular vote". Edit comment: There’s nothing ‘despite’ about it.
  • I changed it back to "despite". Edit comment: "despite" is clearer, especially for readers who may not know the details of the US presidential election system. It's been "despite" for years. Let's keep it that way.
  • KoA changed it back to "while". Edit comment: It reads as though the page is arguing that she should have been elected because she won the popular vote. "Despite" was removed from the lede section of the Donald Trump article this year in much the same way. She lost perfectly legitimately. There’s nothing "despite" about it.

I then looked at the Donald Trump talk archives and found the discussions Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 172#"despite_losing_the_popular_vote" (June 2024) and Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 158#Some issues with the lede (June 2023).

Many editors think "despite" simply expresses the fact that the result may be unexpected, especially for readers who are not familiar with the US electoral college. Many others think "despite" expresses some kind of illegitimacy and "while" is more neutral. In the end, a majority seemed to prefer "while". It's also been changed from "despite" to "while" in George W. Bush and Benjamin Harrison.

I think both iterpretations of "despite" are reasonable, but I'm not terribly opposed to "while". And in the interest of consistency and (as some argue) neutrality, I think we should now stick with "while" until a new consensus emerges. That's all for now. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo for infobox

[edit]

Should 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/ec/Former_United_States_Secretary_of_State_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_at_the_U.S._Department_of_State_on_September_26%2C_2023_in_Washington%2C_D.C._14_%28cropped%29.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Hillary_Clinton_53663388489_o_%281%29.jpg DougheGojiraMan (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
I really like your first suggestion for the infobox. 3df (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]