Novemberjazz (talk | contribs) |
→Ordering of offices in infobox: Replying to KidAd (using reply-link) |
||
Line 374:
::::{{u|KidAd}}, I have not stated that {{tq|time passes non-linearly}}. Your sarcastic comment is insulting and borderline [[WP:UNCIVIL]]. ― [[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 03:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{U|Tartan357}}, my "sarcastic comment" is a perfectly-valid point that you have failed to address. Why order the infobox non-linearly? You haven't explained any potential reasoning. [[User:KidAd|<span style="background-color: orange; color: black">KidAd</span>]] [[User talk:KidAd|<span style="color: orange">talk</span>]] 03:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{u|KidAd}}, my argument is obviously not that "time passes non-linearly". That's insane. My argument is that the most relevant positions for the infobox are the ones of greatest importance. I think it's most useful to the readers to have the positions of greatest prominence at the top. That's not saying that time is non-linear. ― [[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 03:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 03:26, 20 February 2021
Hillary Clinton is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 21, 2019. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
|
Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020
In the section on her comments on Trump, 'despite winning the election' should be changed to 'despite winning the Electoral College' for clarity; it can be argued that either of them won the electiom as she reieved more votes. Changing to 'Electoral College' removed the ambigiuty. TheJamesifer (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not done. That sentence doesn't appear in the article. I think I see what you're referring to, but in either case, there's only one plain meaning of "winning the election", despite the oddities of how an ultimate winner is determined. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2020
I THINK YOU SHOULD ADD THAT SHE TRIED RUNNING FOOT OFFICE CallumPoole7200 (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've never heard of the Foot Office, but the article mentions her running for the office of President.Crboyer (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2020
Change "In January 2011, Clinton traveled to Haiti in order to help pave the way for the election of Michel Martelly." to "In January 2011, Clinton traveled to Haiti in order to pressure the president of Haiti into complying with international intervention in Haitian elections, a US-funded mission[2] which was later found to produce inaccurate election results.[3]" [1]: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/0131/Hillary-Clinton-presses-Haiti-s-Rene-Preval-to-break-election-stalemate [2]: https://haitiliberte.com/how-the-oas-has-subverted-elections-in-bolivia-and-haiti/ [3]: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/haitis-rigged-election/ (The original phrasing is problematic because it frames the visit as typical courteous diplomacy, while the PM at the time has been quoted as saying, "We tried to resist and did, until the visit of Hillary Clinton. That was when Préval understood he had no way out and accepted." In fact, she and her department played a significant role in forcing intervention that turned out to be based on inaccurate readings, arguably delegitimizing the results.)
Also, change "In July 2010, she visited South Korea, where she and Cheryl Mills worked to convince SAE-A, a large apparel subcontractor, to invest in Haiti despite the company's deep concerns about plans to raise the minimum wage." to "In July 2010, she visited South Korea, where she and Cheryl Mills worked to convince SAE-A, a large apparel subcontractor, to invest in Haiti. The company held deep concerns about plans to raise the minimum wage, though Clinton's State Department previously worked closely with other companies and the government itself to urge against raising the minimum wage by 37 cents.[1]" [1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-haiti-us-pushed-to-lower-minimum-wage/ (Again, the original article makes mention of this subject in a detached manner. The fact she oversaw the subversion of that very law should be included, as it emphasizes her role.) Fuwafuwano (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not done. First request's wording is confusing. What international intervention? Who found the results to be inaccurate? Second request is WP:SYNTH. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Clinton's predatory relationship with Haiti during her position as Secretary of State is misrepresented as helpful.
Request 1: change "In January 2011, Clinton traveled to Haiti in order to help pave the way for the election of Michel Martelly." to "In January 2011, Clinton traveled to Haiti in order to pressure the president of Haiti into complying with OAS-led international intervention in Haitian elections.[1] CEPR found that the intervention, a mission to recalculate vote counts[2], contradicted actual polling results (which would have eliminated the candidate who won the presidency) and was suggestive of bias within OAS[3].
[1]https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/0131/Hillary-Clinton-presses-Haiti-s-Rene-Preval-to-break-election-stalemate [2]https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-461/10 [3]https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/haiti-2011-01.pdf (I fixed the wording of my original request so as to acknowledge exactly which international intervention and who found the results to be inaccurate, as prompted.)
Request 2: change "In July 2010, she visited South Korea, where she and Cheryl Mills worked to convince SAE-A, a large apparel subcontractor, to invest in Haiti despite the company's deep concerns about plans to raise the minimum wage." to "In July 2010, she visited South Korea, where she and Cheryl Mills worked to convince SAE-A, a large apparel subcontractor, to invest in Haiti. The company held deep concerns about plans to raise the minimum wage, though Clinton's State Department previously urged the Haitian president against raising the minimum wage[1] by 37[2] cents, so as to assist sweatshop owners.[3]”
[1]https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Haitians-Workers-Fight-for-Higher-Minimum-Wage-Suppressed-by-Clintons-State-Department-20170522-0037.html [2]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-haiti-us-pushed-to-lower-minimum-wage/ [3]https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day/ (I added two, lengthier sources that eliminate the possibility of original research on my part. My paraphrasing is supported by the following sentences: "To resolve the impasse between the factory owners and Parliament, the State Department urged quick intervention by then Haitian President René Préval.” Said factory owners "refused to pay 62 cents per hour, or $5 per day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian Parliament in June 2009 would have mandated.” "According to memos obtained by Wikileaks in 2008 and 2009, the U.S. State Department blocked a proposal to increase the minimum wage in Haiti.” "The U.S. State Department subsequently brought pressure to bear on Haiti's president,” "...American clothing makers with factories in Haiti were displeased after the government raised the minimum wage more than two and a half times the previous minimum 24 cents an hour.” "The Nation published a scoop - momentarily - on its website about Wikileaks cables revealing pressure from Washington on Haiti's government not to raise the national minimum wage to 61 cents an hour.") Fuwafuwano (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hold off until NY state results are certified, but we will probably be adding this page to "Category:2020 United States presidential electors"
Hold off until NY state results are certified, but we will probably be adding this page to "Category:2020 United States presidential electors". This category, not yet existing, will be created once electors are formally assigned following the certification of state results. Clinton, on the nominated slate of Dem electors for New York state, will apparently be serving as an elector, as dems are reported to have carried NY state in the presidential race. However, results are not yet certified, and until they are, she is not yet an elector. SecretName101 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020
Please add the following navboxes to the foot of the article, consistent with other major party nominees for Presidents, Senators, and Cabinet members (see Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry for just a few such examples of articles with navboxes.
73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)- For what it's worth, those boxes were previously on the page until late August. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Addendum, the edit reason says it was removed per the lack of boxes at Donald Trump, but that page seems to be an outlier.73.110.217.186 (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 Dec
change "She was the first woman to win the popular vote in an American presidential election, which she lost to Donald Trump." To "she was the first woman to win the popular vote in an American presidential election but lost the votes of the electoral college, whom she won the second place in.' Quadmuffs (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not done: Not an improvement, the proposed text makes the situation less clear and less grammatical. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021
Viejotopo (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
En la pagina de Hillary Clinton se dice en la versión en castellano: "es un político americano, diplomático, abogado , escritor y orador público". En castellano debería poner: "es una política americana, diplomática, abogada, escritora y oradora pública".
- Not done This is the talk page of the English Wikipedia article on Hillary Clinton. As the Spanish article is not under any protection, you can apply any grammar fixes yourself at es:Hillary Clinton. AngryHarpytalk 13:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Remove Donald Trump from lead
I would like to establish consensus for removing Donald Trump from the lead, changing “She was the first woman to win the popular vote in an American presidential election, which she lost to Donald Trump” to something along the lines of “She was the first woman to win the popular vote in an American presidential election, although she lost the electoral college.”
I feel that including Donald Trump in the lead diminishes the importance of her significant contributions and achievements—there is much more to Hillary Clinton than her loss to Mr. Trump. Additionally, any viewer can simply refer to the section regarding the 2016 election to learn more about the election and to learn that her loss was to Mr. Trump.
Further, there is very mixed precedent for including the name of the losing candidate’s opponent within the lead section for past presidential elections, although it appears that precedent for recent elections is to not include the name, i.e., Mitt Romney, Al Gore, George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, etc. In fact, Mr. Trump’s article does not mention his loss to Joe Biden.
In anticipation of receiving pushback for the change with regard to other editors stating Mr. Trump’s name should remain in the lead due to the significance of the 2016 election, I would counter that the 2000 and 2020 elections were arguably even more significant.
Let’s not diminish the achievements and significant contributions of this woman. Otherwise, we need to begin including the name of the winning opponent in the lead for every single losing presidential candidate.
Thank you. thirsty 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Makes sense - sounds good to me. Shearonink (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think this a big problem, but I guess remove it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with removing it from lede paragraph 1, the whole sentence is redundant with lede paragraph 4. Trump should not be mentioned twice for the same thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Undue weight on her religious beliefs
There is an entire section on her religious views. This is unusual since Clinton isn't notable for her beliefs. I say remove it and mention, in a sentence or 2, she's lifelong Methodist somewhere in the early section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Ordering of offices in infobox
KidAd has reordered the positions in the infobox chronologically, placing "Chancellor of Queen's University Belfast" at the top. They've self-reverted pending the outcome of this discussion. I believe that the current configuration, in which the positions are ordered by importance, is preferable per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. How should the offices be ordered: chronologically, or by importance? ― Tartan357 Talk 03:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- The current infobox structuring should remain in place when it is agreed upon that the date of January 2, 2020 occurred after the periods of 1993 to 2001, 2001 to 2009, and 2009 to 2013. KidAd talk 03:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- KidAd, why? I've given MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE to support my position. Is there a guideline that states these offices must be ordered chronologically? ― Tartan357 Talk 03:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Tartan357, where in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE does it state that time passes non-linearly? I fail to see how MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE supports your argument at all. KidAd talk 03:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- KidAd, I have not stated that
time passes non-linearly
. Your sarcastic comment is insulting and borderline WP:UNCIVIL. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)- Tartan357, my "sarcastic comment" is a perfectly-valid point that you have failed to address. Why order the infobox non-linearly? You haven't explained any potential reasoning. KidAd talk 03:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- KidAd, my argument is obviously not that "time passes non-linearly". That's insane. My argument is that the most relevant positions for the infobox are the ones of greatest importance. I think it's most useful to the readers to have the positions of greatest prominence at the top. That's not saying that time is non-linear. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Tartan357, my "sarcastic comment" is a perfectly-valid point that you have failed to address. Why order the infobox non-linearly? You haven't explained any potential reasoning. KidAd talk 03:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- KidAd, I have not stated that
- Tartan357, where in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE does it state that time passes non-linearly? I fail to see how MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE supports your argument at all. KidAd talk 03:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- KidAd, why? I've given MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE to support my position. Is there a guideline that states these offices must be ordered chronologically? ― Tartan357 Talk 03:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)