Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:14, 18 November 2016

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 14 days

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: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:WikiProject Hillary Rodham ClintonPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Arkansas / Cape Cod and the Islands / Presidential elections / Government High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Cape Cod and the Islands (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women writers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

view · edit Frequently asked questions 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Eve Fairbanks (2008-04-09). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (2008-04-03). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. Brooke Gladstone (2008-04-04). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. John J. Miller (2008-04-21). "Liberal Web". National Review. Pascal Harter (2008-04-08). The World Today, BBC World Service. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Jesse Brown (2008-04-10). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (2008-04-12). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. . Jeopardy!. 2008-05-07. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Kelly Heyboer (2008-05-28). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (2008-05-28). "one of two pieces aired". WCBS Newsradio 880. Maxwell Tani (2015-05-15). "Meet the guy who has protected Hillary Clinton's Misplaced Pages page for almost a decade". Business Insider. Elspeth Reeve (June 13, 2015). "The ladies who love Hillary". The New Republic. Roudman, Sam (June 7, 2016). "Misplaced Pages Wars Over Clinton As Presumptive Nominee". Vocativ. Wagner, Meg (October 13, 2016). "Hacker posts porn on Hillary Clinton's Misplaced Pages page". New York Daily News. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post.

Template:Friendly search suggestions

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Move logs: Hillary Rodham Clinton Hillary Clinton Discussions: RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, Moved (panel closure), closed 8 May 2015, decision posted 11 June 2015 Older discussions: RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move, closed 12 February 2007 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move (malformed move request, non-admin closure), closed 21 December 2007 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move, closed 18 June 2011 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move, closed 20 November 2012 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, Moved to Hillary Clinton (non-admin closure), closed 18 June 2013 MR, Closure as move of Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, Moved back to Hillary Rodham Clinton (no clear consensus for the previous move), closed 28 June 2013 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, Speedy close as no consensus (non-admin closure), closed 24 February 2014 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus to move (admin panel closure), closed 21 April 2014 MR, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, No consensus, default to endorse, and procedural restrictions established: No further move request to be started until February 2015, and between February 2015 and February 2017, or the closure of the next valid move request, whichever is earlier, no move request to be made unless at least 5,000 characters in length, closed 31 May 2014 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Secretary Clinton, Speedy close since another RM open (non-admin closure), closed 17 April 2014 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary (politician), Speedy close as unlikely and potentially disruptive (non-admin closure, rapidly endorsed by admin), closed 27 April 2014 RM, Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton, Summarily closed citing prior declaration that if an RM is submitted prior to February 2017 it must be at least 5,000 characters in length (non-admin closure), closed 9 April 2015

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 Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones Date Process Result May 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 14, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted June 7, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 14, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 21, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept February 28, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept May 27, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 18, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept June 6, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept December 13, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 7, 2015. Current status: Featured article

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 14 days

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Detailed traffic statistics

Language on "reopening" of FBI investigation.

An editor has sought to add the following language to the article:

On October 28, 2016, the ] said the bureau is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. <ref name="bbc">{{cite web | url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37805525/ | title=Hillary Clinton email probe reopens | date=Oct 28, 2016 | accessdate=Oct 28, 2016 | publisher=bbc.com}}</ref> Mr Comey had previously called Mrs Clinton's handling of classified information during her time as secretary of state "extremely careless", but cleared her of any criminal wrongdoing.<ref name="bbc"/>

I believe that this merits a discussion for notability with respect to the general biography article, and for wording. Since the article identified as a source states that the FBI "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant", it seems premature to include mention of it in an encyclopedia article. The line regarding Comey's previous characterization is redundant to content already in the article. Thoughts? bd2412 T 18:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is most likely notable but there's conflicting reports about what it actually means. My understanding is that they got new emails, which are not Clinton's, which they have to review and so they're legally bound to report this to Congress. This doesn't mean the investigation is re-opened (except I guess in a sort of colloquial sense). But we'll see.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Since we have an entire section on the emails, we should mention the FBI has reopened the investigation after finding more emails, probably the ones Clinton deleted as personal. TFD (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The FBI has not "reopened" the investigation. They will assess new emails. Comey did not say they were reopening the investigation; bad headline writers did. The articles themselves don't say it's "reopened". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Can you provide a source for the proposition that these are "probably the ones Clinton deleted as personal"? Reporting on the matter seems to suggest the opposite, with one source stating that "it doesn’t pertain to emails Clinton herself sent". bd2412 T 18:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No such sources, in fact, some comments from journalists on twitter suggest these are not even Clinton's emails or emails she received. Too early to find out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is Ari Melber talking about how little we know about this development, the many things it could or could not be, and how we should be careful to rush to any conclusions, especially to the idea that these are "deleted emails". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There is relevant discussion about this at Talk:Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy. We have concluded that Comey did not say "re-opening" although some news reports and news headlines did. In fact some sources have rewritten their initial headline to remove the word "reopening". We have a consensus paragraph in the article which you all are welcome to copy here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and these are obviously not the "deleted e-mails". Comey said they were from an unrelated case. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Until such time as there is information that would support this being relevant to Clinton's general biography, I see nothing worth including. As a practical matter, the more reporting is done on the issue, the less it seems to involve Clinton at all - not her emails, not withheld, not from her server. bd2412 T 19:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The story should be included definitely (unless it becomes clear that this is a nothing-burger). We shouldn't call it a "re-opening" until RS describe it as such consistently (it seems as if RS are moving away from that description, if anything). Because Comey's letter was so vague, I feel that we need to be fairly quick to include reporting from "FBI sources", as well, given that the most recent reporting seems to suggest that this is a nothing-burger. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, strike that! The changes on this story are drastic. I'm less inclined to want to add this to Clinton's main article if this just revolves around checking the classification of 3 e-mails found in related to Weiner's sexting scandal. I think we should at the very least wait for a couple of hours of reporting before we add anything to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. This seems like small potatoes for her biography. Relevant for the email subarticle, yes. If it's only three emails, it may be even less relevant than we've thought. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Three? According to the NYT article linked by Snoogans, "The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case — one federal official said they numbered in the thousands". --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I might've seen an inaccurate number. It's hard to know what info is legit. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's Newsweek . This is starting to look more like a political stunt by a couple Republican representatives desperately trying to save Trump's campaign. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Your Newsweek link doesn't say anything about Republican representatives. Instead, it says Comey had no choice; he had to reveal this information to suppliement his sworn statements to Congress. For that matter, Comey himself is a Republican, but I'll AGF that he was just doing his job in informing Congress about this. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

We probably ought to watch any discussion over at Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy to see how that goes, rather than having two separate discussions on the meaning and import of the announcement. Based on that we can decide what if anything to summarize here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Shamelessly desperate stuff from the HRC-kissers. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically the case was not re-opened because it was never technically closed. Maybe we could say "resumed," since there is no doubt it had become inactive. TFD (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Attorney General: Hillary Clinton Email Case Is Closed", July 6, 2016 – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, she used the term "closed" in her address. But I do not see why we should use her phrasing when the FBI says it was never closed. TFD (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Where did the FBI said it wasn't closed? Loretta Lynch outranks James Comey. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Newsweek, "technically it was never closed.” And Comey writes about the investigation in the present tense. Certainly Comey, who is director of the FBI and one of the nation's leading prosecutors is in a better position to describe the nuances of FBI procedure than Loretta Lynch. This isn't Prussia where we assume that the higher rank one has, the more one knows. TFD (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The higher the rank the more authority applies in the U.S., and the FBI is part of the DOJ. So if it was never "closed", it definitely hasn't been "reopened". This whole thing is confusing. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

All this discussion is irrelevant. There's clearly nothing in this significant enough to make it worthy of coverage in a biography of Clinton's entire life. It's not even close. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If the case was never closed, and there is new Hillary emails, then this fact should be reflected in the article, otherwise, as many, many, have suggested about Wilipedia, there is BIAS AFOOT! Misplaced Pages should NOT be used as a medium to protect private biases, it should be used to inform.Hmmreally (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Says the person who called the Southern Poverty Law Center a "hate group". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to disagree there, Scjessey. Although the latest emails may not be relevant to Hillary in the long-term - and from what I've read there's nothing to indicate they will be - their significance is enough if it could influence the election and her nomination, perhaps in a major way, and you've already got The Economist saying so. I think it should probably be included the email section of the article as soon as possible, especially since it's already in the lead of the respective article. Jr8825 • Talk 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no evidence it could influence the election whatsoever. It would take days for polling to even suggest such a thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to the letter Comey sent to Congress ... www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/28/us/politics/fbi-letter.html?_r=0 Paraphrased; he states that he felt it was important to supplement his previous testimony and he felt the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps. Due to the timing and negative backlash he must have known he would receive, it must have been extremely important to let the public know his previous testimony was incomplete ... shouldn't we also make sure Wiki is current at such an important time? In the Hillary Clinton Wiki article, the following statement is attributed to Comey ... "On July 5, 2016, the FBI concluded its investigation. In a statement, FBI director James Comey said: ..." If Comey felt it was important enough to supplement his previous comments and disrupt the Presidential election, shouldn't his comments be updated here as well? I'm sure it will need to be updated again once the details are revealed, but what is in there now is incomplete. Adding the contents of Comeys letter brings the article up to date. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.83.76 (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you find any reliable sources for the propositions that Comey "felt it was important to supplement his previous testimony", or that this "must have been extremely important"? Some sources now appear to indicate that this was a routine update required by the rules of the House Committee, not a judgment call on Comey's part. See, e.g., this article stating that "it does seem that Comey’s letter could be a fairly routine notification delivered to Congress". bd2412 T 02:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The higher the rank the more authority does not apply in the U.S. When Bush was president, Misplaced Pages did not suddenly declare that the world was created 6,000 years ago. TFD (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing related to Weiner or the investigation of him belongs in this article. As far as this article is concerned, it's a trivial matter. (Only far right conspiracy theorists care about Clinton's emails anyway). --Tataral (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Only far right conspiracy theorists care about Clinton's emails anyway

I presume this is ironic. And why does the word seizure not appear in this article? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

bd2412 - The source is FBI Director James Comey in the NY Times article I linked above. He said, "... I am writing to supplement my previous testimony." He also stated, "I believe it is important to update your committees ..." But you can read the whole N.Y. Times article yourself so there is no ambiguity. Here is is again. I hope that helps. :) www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/28/us/politics/fbi-letter.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.83.76 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Reading the whole letter, it sounds to me like he's simply saying as he previously testified that the investigation was completely, he felt it was important to let them know he'd re-opened it. Our article obviously should mention the investigation was re-opened and this can include Comey updating his testimony but I think re-need to wait until we see how secondary sources respond to see whether it's a big deal before we go much further. Notably important (enough) to .. disrupt the Presidential election appears to be WP:OR. The alternative view is that Comey felt it was his duty to handle the investigation however he normally would (despite the allegations of Trump and his supports to the contrary) regardless of the persons involved. Aand recognised delaying the annoucement (of forgoing the investigatio) would be seen as allowing himself to be influenced by the politics/trying to help Hillary. While the contrary could happen, ultimately "this is what I would have done if there was no political mindfield" is difficult to counter. Anything involving national security is likely to be seen as important enough to require thorough investigation by the FBI. I'm sure others could come with yet more personal theories. In other words, until and unless Comey comments on his reasoning, we shouldn't mention or be influenced by OR of his reasoning. I guess if there is widespread discussion of his reasoning in secondary sources, we could mention that, but we'd need these first. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that there is broad difference of opinion on the importance of this development. I therefore propose that we open a request for comments to obtain the complete sense of the community on this. bd2412 T 15:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No, not another premature RfC. Just hold on a little and see what happens. It's already emerged in the 24 hours since this particular event that the new emails have more or less nothing to do with Clinton. Whether it becomes a campaign issue or just inaccurate news of the day won't be known. No point muddying things further with an RfC that is a month-long attempt to take a snapshot of a moving subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? This is the classic definition of recentism, and as someone mentioned above, a moving target. Not 24 hours from the first report, much conflicting information - especially regarding whether the investigation is "re-opened". Absolutely does not belong in the biography of her whole life at this point. No indication of whether this will have any impact on anything, let alone her life story. Not yet. Stop this - we don't need an RFC now, we don't add anything - just sit on your hands. I know it's hard, but do it. This is absurd. I agree with Wikidemon.Tvoz/talk 18:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a distinction between "recent" and "recentism." I hope when the election is decided no one will ask to exclude the results because of "recentism." The reality is that if we have an entire section of the email scandal, then we should mention that the investigation has been resumed. TFD (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous point, sorry. Of course the results of the election are not recentism, any more than reports of deaths and births are - things that are clear facts. Read WP:RECENTISM to explain this simple point. There has been no indication that this will amount to anything. Too soon to know, utterly wrong to include it now. Tvoz/talk 21:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey just wrote the same talking point at another Clinton article and I will repeat what I said to them. Calling the statements of other people ridiculous may be an effective tactic on Reddit, but here it is just disruptive. It masks the fact you have no case and are resorting to an argumentum ad lapidem. A reasonable response would have explained how "recentism" relates to the information. It's not some sort of chant that makes unpalatable information go away. The email controversy is not "an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events." The Clinton campaign itself is a recent event and what happens in its final days is significant if it becomes the focus of the 24 hour news cycle. In a perfect world of course the mainstream media might have ignored the story, in which case we would have excluded it. TFD (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"The investigation" has not been "resumed". That is a fiction. Comey stepped out of line, tying an unrelated matter to Clinton, and is now receiving the appropriate scorn for the Department of Justice and the mainstream media. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The criticism appears to come from Clinton and her surrogates. They were defending him last summer.

According to an article in the New York Times, "In a conference call with campaign surrogates...Clinton advisers asked them to push a coordinated message in news media interviews and with voters: that the F.B.I. investigation had not been reopened; that none of the new emails had emerged from Mrs. Clinton; that the F.B.I. had to release more details about its inquiry; and that they were concerned that Mr. Comey had taken this action." I was not in on the conference call, but this article should not be based on Clinton campaign talking points.

TFD (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Comey's also being criticized by apolitical colleagues. Of course the Clinton campaign has a coordinated message. That's nothing new. The comments by former DOJ officials is clearly not a campaign talking point. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

They are not apolitical Peter Zeidenberg is a partner at DLA Piper the 5th largest donor to the Clinton campaign and served in the Obama administration. Nick Akerman is at Dorsey & Whitney, another Democratic law firm. Matthew Miller, according to the article, is "a former Justice Department and former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman." Dan Richman was a federal prosecutor, which is a political appointment. TFD (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Being a partner at a law firm does not in anyway make a person political. That sounds like guilt by association. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Politics is about association. He and his associates decided jointly to be one of Clinton's largest donors and he has contributed individually as well. Previously he was a federal prosecutor, which is a political appointment. Clearly he prefers Clinton over Trump. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it excludes one from being "apolitical," which is the claim Muboshgu made. TFD (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a real stretch. Besides, everybody prefers one politician over the other. It does not exclude everybody from being part of a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No it is not a "real stretch" to say that people who receive political appointments and contribute to political campaigns are not "apolitical." Also kindly do not misrepresent me. I did not say it does not exclude someone from being part of a reliable source. As you should be aware, I was replying to Muboshgu's statement "Comey's also being criticized by apolitical colleagues." Since we are discussing opinions, the issue is neutrality not reliability. BTW your comment that "everybody prefers one politician over the other" contradicts your support of describing commentators as "apolitical." I would be more impressed if you would present a coherent internally consistent argument rather than conflicting arguments hoping one of them will stick. TFD (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on who is apolitical or what is a stretch, but there is absolutely no basis for claiming that being a partner at a law firm makes one politically aligned with the law firm. That's not how partnerships work, and all sorts of POV problems lie that way. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a biography, yes, but it contains a multiple-paragraph section about the email investigations. That should definitely include a sentence or two about the latest development. There is no question that this is a big story, even if it winds up producing nothing of significance in the end. Here is one possible wording, adapted from the lede of the email controversy article: On October 28, 2016 Comey notified Congress that the FBI has started looking into newly discovered emails that may be pertinent to the case. Law enforcement officials stated the emails were found on an electronic device shared by Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, former Congressman Anthony Weiner. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Perez, Evan; Brown, Pamela (October 29, 2016). "Comey notified Congress of email probe despite DOJ concerns". CNN. Retrieved October 29, 2016.
2. "Emails in Anthony Weiner Inquiry Jolt Hillary Clinton's Campaign". The New York Times. October 28, 2016. Retrieved 29 October 2016.

Nonsense. Even if it is a "big story", it is a big story for the Comey article, not the Clinton article. Please explain to me how, from the historical perspective, this email matter concerning someone other than Hillary Clinton, will end up being a significant detail in a biography covering her entire life. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This may be the pinnacle of Comey's career, but any discussion of someone else's estranged husband would be ridiculous in the Hillary Clinton article. --Tataral (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It may, eventually, turn out to be more about Comey than anyone else. But for now, every Reliable Source in the country is treating it as a major headline story and as an item about Clinton, while her opponent has made it into a major focus of his recent speeches. We only look foolish by withholding it from this article and pretending it isn't happening. Worse, we leave readers in the dark when they come here to find out what the latest headlines are about. Straw in the wind: the article Hillary Clinton email controversy has gotten 100,000 pageviews in the last two days. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, you have utterly failed to explain how this issue is significant to a biography of Clinton's entire life. This has gone beyond reasoned argument into blatant POV-pushing. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey, I can see that you feel very strongly about this, but please don't accuse people you know nothing about of "blatant POV-pushing". You have no idea how I feel about this election, and I don't believe my editing here and at the Trump articles has shown any bias. The answer to your objection is simple, really too simple to need pointing out: this biographical article already contains a multiple-paragraph section about the email controversy. Obviously the email issue has long since been judged significant enough to include; that issue is settled, and there is no need to defend it all over again. Given that the section already exists, there is nothing POV about wanting to add an additional sentence to that section to bring it up to date. In fact, as TFD points out below, leaving that information out is misleading; it implies that the investigation ended in July. --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring any editor conflict, the issue is not judged to be significant simply because the article has evolved in that way for the moment — the email controversy thing has grown unduly long and detailed. It may be worth a mention, somewhere between a passing mention and a career-ending issue, but we just don't know. The section definitely should be cut back, unless she loses the election and it is sourced as a leading cause. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That section has been in the article for many months, and in fact it used to be longer than it is now, so it hasn't exactly "evolved in that way for the moment." Its long-time presence indicates long-time consensus, and only consensus can remove it. We are not debating whether the section should be there or not. We are debating whether to give it a one-sentence update. --MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's way too long as it is, having accumulated far too much material. That's no argument for making it even longer. - Wikidemon (talk)

I don't think this Comey goof up deserves mention in this prominent biography. It belongs in the email controversy article as evidenced by MelanieN's pageview stat, with a brief mention in the campaign article. It is entirely unclear what connection, if any, there is the HRC, although that may change in the next day or so. - MrX 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If the email controversy is significant to her life, then so is the fact the investigation has resumed. Otherwise we are misleading readers into thinking the investigation ended with Comey's statement in July. That is not "blatant POV-pushing." TFD (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Hillary Clinton is now once again under criminal investigation by the FBI needs to be acknowledged clearly in the header of this article. I could not find it there. It is far more relevant to her biography than the more ephemeral chatter included there. If every page on Misplaced Pages is to be locked, perhaps you should go back to the Brittanica model of having, you know, people with actual credibility writing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.35.123 (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

But, she's not under an active criminal investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

She is. And the FBI is executing a search warrant, which is only available to them with cause. TFD (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that's another fiction. The search warrant is not being executed against Hillary Clinton, but against Weiner and his poor wife. Saying Clinton is under active criminal investigation is an astonishing BLP violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. It's Hillary guilt by association with Weiner. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

TFD, you undermine your own credibility when you make such a juxtaposition, implying that Clinton is the subject of a search warrant.- MrX 15:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording

We continue to look like fools, or at the very least to mislead our readers, to have the "email controversy" section end with "On July 6, 2016, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed that the probe into Clinton's use of private email servers while secretary of state will be closed without criminal charges." Now we are getting outside editors trying to add the new development (and getting reverted), because it so obviously needs to be there. After several days of discussion at the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign article, we added two sentences to the "email controversy" section which simply document the information released Friday, without any lurid detail, and without any attempt to follow the twists and turns the story has taken since them. IMO that is the minimum that needs to be there and it needs to be there now. Here is what we added:

On October 28, 2016 Comey notified Congress that the FBI has started looking into newly discovered emails that may be pertinent to the case, adding that the FBI "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant". The emails were found on a Clinton aide's private computer in the course of an unrelated investigation.

References

1. ^ Perez, Evan; Brown, Pamela (October 29, 2016). "Comey notified Congress of email probe despite DOJ concerns". CNN. Retrieved October 29, 2016.

I propose that the same two sentences be added to this article so that we don't mislead our readers by stating that the investigation is over, end of story. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

How can we assign encyclopedic significance to something where the investigating agency says it doesn't even know whether there is any significance to it? bd2412 T 18:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

How can we continue to state that the investigation ended in July? --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The only evidence we have is Comey's letter, which does not contradict the previous closure of the investigation. It merely says that there may be something else out there of unknown significance, being looked at in a different investigation of a different person. bd2412 T 18:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In the course of cutting down the section by about 50%, particularly a lot of the back-and-forth arguments and developments that have since been settled, we should probably correct the seemingly inaccurate statement that the investigation was "closed", and possibly mention in half a sentence that at present the FBI is reviewing an additional batch of not previously reviewed. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't even know if that is true. Basically, what we know is that the FBI is looking at Anthony Weiner's emails, and, having no idea what is in them, speculating that there could be something connected to someone connected to the article subject. bd2412 T 18:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't get into the closed-or-not-closed debate. We just need to document what the FBI director said. MelanieN alt (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

So far, I've seen no citations that suggest discussion of Comey's letter to Congress is appropriate for this article. A BLP is not the appropriate venue for posting breaking news of uncertain significance. Ultimately, if, after the election, the majority opinion of reliable sources is that the letter was a material factor in HRC being elected or not, then it would pass muster as being biographically significant. Cinteotl (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. There's no evidence this matter is biographically significant whatsoever. I should also add that the current wording that says "On July 6, 2016, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed that the probe into Clinton's use of private email servers while secretary of state will be closed without criminal charges," remains accurate. While it is true that the FBI is looking at some possibly related emails, it is not true that the Justice Department is. The DOJ's probe remains closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The FBI is under the Justice Department. If the FBI is investigating, by default so is the DOJ. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/justice-department-pledges-quick-work-on-renewed-clinton-email-probe-230552 The Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ even said they are working with the FBI to make it quick. So it does not appear that the case is closed. I would at least suggest correcting the wording to reflect that the investigation is still ongoing. PackMecEng (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What we know is that an investigation of Anthony Weiner is ongoing. bd2412 T 02:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In Comey's letter to congress he said "the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails" soon after he said in a letter to FBI employees saying "This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them." Also noting that he felt obligated to tell congress, since he testified previously the investigation was complete. So while they were investigating Anthony Weiner, they found emails they think are related to the Clinton probe. PackMecEng (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly not the same as this being an investigation of Hillary Clinton herself, since the email investigation encompassed people other than Clinton herself. bd2412 T 02:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The investigation mentioned in the Email controversy section of the article has restarted according the Comey and the DOJ. Also that section mentions Clinton or her colleagues. I am just saying that section of the article should reflect the fact the investigation no longer closed. I think the purposed wording above corrects the error. PackMecEng (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I am certainly open to an RFC on the question. bd2412 T 02:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, there is no evidence this is biographically significant enough to feature in an article of Clinton's entire life, particularly as it centers around a third party and not Clinton herself. No amount of hand wringing over language will alter this salient detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What is being purposed is fixing an error in the existing section, not creating a new secton. There is a line in the article that is factually incorrect, why would we not fix a known error? The only question is the wording of the fix at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not true. What exists in the article is factually correct according to reliable sources. Remember, BLPs are written from the historical perspective. There is nothing to suggest recent developments may prove to be important enough to alter the outcome of the concluded investigation and rise to the level of biographical significance. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"FBI's Comey clears Clinton after round-the-clock review of new emails", as expected. Perhaps now we can close this thread and move on? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I would think so, but I just reverted an addition to the article regarding exactly that. Since the matter was closed quickly, and with an almost anti-climactic restatement of the earlier finding of innocence, it hardly seems like this blip belongs in the article. bd2412 T 23:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the source. Police do not make make findings of innocence, they determine that there is insufficient evidence to indict. And yes the fact that additional emails came to light after Comey's original findings, causing him to resume his investigation, is part of the narrative of the investigation. TFD (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Part of the investigation, but not so relevant to her life. We don't give a play-by-play of the investigation in this article, that's why we have the spinoff article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I was about to add something myself, but thought I would look here first. I'm astonished to find people still saying that these two letters should be omitted from our article. They were front page news for days, first raising questions and then settling them, and there is no question they affected the polls; we don't yet know if they will affect the election. IMO we are depriving our readers by pretending none of this ever happened. I propose to add, with appropriate references, On October 28, 2016, Comey informed Congress that the FBI had discovered emails in an unrelated case that might be relevant to their investigation of the Clinton email issue. In a second letter on November 6, Comey said they had completed their review of the new material, and it did not change their earlier conclusion that no charges should be filed. That's about as brief and neutral as you can possibly make it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"front page news for days": WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: If mentioned at all, I'd cut it to less than half that. "Additional emails discovered an unrelated case in October 2016 were reviewed, and announced on November 6, 2016 not to affect the earlier conclusion". At most. bd2412 T 00:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, probably not worth mentioning at all at this point. Kind of why we have NOT#NEWS and RECENTIVISM in the first place, best to see how events play out rather than being in a rush to add everything to to an article. If anything comes of it, we'll know later. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There's clearly no biographical significance here, and even less so now that it is clear it was much ado about nothing. The only place this belongs is Hillary Clinton email controversy. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Reopening of the Email investigation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why no mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

See the section above titled Language on "reopening" of FBI investigation. Or, better yet, Hillary Clinton email controversy, where it's more relevant. clpo13_(talk) 18:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, concerning any controversies, both this article and Donald Trump should be left alone, until after the US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It is unlikely, at this point, that any editing controversies arising between now in the election would be settled within a week anyway. bd2412 T 18:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

There are currently 700 words in the article about the email controversy, concluding, "On July 6, 2016, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed that the probe into Clinton's use of private email servers while secretary of state will be closed without criminal charges." Leaving the section that way is misleading, because the FBI found additional emails and resumed the investigation. Even most pro-Hillary news source would not have an article summarizing the controversy and fail to mention that the investigation has resumed. Instead of suppressing the facts, as we are doing, they spin it into a personal attack on the FBI director. I know that the Clinton campaign talking point is that the investigation has not been re-opened, and of course technically that is true. But they are still talking about it. TFD (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Whether "technically" true or not, I struggle to come up with text that concisely encompasses the amorphous nature of the information that is presently available. What we know is that Anthony Weiner has a device with emails on it. Are these emails pertinent to another investigation? No one knows, because they have not been looked at. Therefore, the question boils down to a) whether it is worth mentioning in the biography of the subject speculation with an as-yet unknown relationship to that biography; and b) how would we phrase such a mention to make it clear that there is nothing there from which to draw a conclusion? bd2412 T 15:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. And to echo what others have said there is no deadline. We can certainly afford to wait and see what relevance, if any, this new discovery has of lasting biographical importance. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

adding religion

proposal to add in infobox: christianity(methodism) which is HRC's religion . for some reason certain users such as Scjessey are opposed to adding this. does anyone object to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 20:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@74tyhegf: Apparently there was a consensus established that religious affiliation should not be in infoboxes for politicians(I don't have the link handy, but I'm sure someone will) as it is often too fluid and nonspecific. which is precisely the wrong type of information for infoboxes. To do what you want, you will have to change the established consensus on that matter. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

then perhaps religon on obama, bill clinton, mitt romney, john mccain and many others pages should be deleted? it does seem like hillary is, in fact, one of the odd ones out..... 74tyhegf (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion on this talk page about this matter is archived here. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I will delete religion from the two Bushes, Obama, and Bill Clinton. I will cite back to this page for authority.--maslowsneeds🌈 00:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

After I deleted religion from the GWB info box, my deletion was reverted due to no such policy that bans religion from the infoboxes for politicians. Therefore, religion does belong in infoboxes of politicians.--maslowsneeds🌈 02:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There was an overwhelming consensus to exclude this parameter in these cases in this Village Pump RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That has not been consistently applied (many pages such as george bush, mitt romney etc. still have religion), so we should reach a consensus here before taking any unilateral action. 74tyhegf (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Local consensus doesn't trump wider community discussion (which the village pump certainly is). Ed  04:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in some local consensus is allowed for religion in infoboxes. The RfC result is to remove religion from politicians' infoboxes except where the religion is significant to the person's notability. That may not be the exact statement. But a local consensus could form, consistent with the RfC, that a politician is known for their religion. Anyway, that exception doesn't apply here. Clinton is not notable for being Methodist. Many of the articles that still retain the religious field are going against the RfC, not making a deliberate exception. So it's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't entirely feel that the generic RfC is appropriate for politicians, especially those in a country like the US where religion is so highly politicized. Clinton's religion is both notable and relevant information in the public interest, and so there is a strong case for it being in the infobox (as it is for Bush, Trump, etc.) While I don't have a strong opinion on whether it belongs in an infobox (or just discussed in the article), I lean slightly to the view that this is summary information that will be important to some readers, and therefore should be in the infobox. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. In point of fact, the US Constitution should mean that the religious affiliation of a politician is irrelevant. In the few cases where it might have inflated importance, like all the squabbling over Barack Obama, it should be covered in the body of the article. We have learned from experience that religious affiliations in infoboxes are constantly altered, even edit warred. The global consensus should be followed here, since Hillary's religious affiliation is of little significance. And even if we do end up with an overriding local consensus, per the global consensus it should remain out of the infobox until such a local consensus is established. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• WP:EGRS seems rather clear here. Her religion isn't a major component of her politics. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Claim of editorializing

Perhaps Ajax1995 can explain this reversion more fully? Since it is attributed to a respected journalist from a reliable source, how can the edit summary of "WP:EDITORIALIZING Multiple issues; Biased information, blatant violation NPOV, not encyclopaedic value. No article, No entry. UNACCEPTABLE: "Clinton definitely has the political skills that an officeholder needs". Please save it to Univision/Telemundo" be justified? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Lots of respected journalists like Hillary Clinton and some do not. What is the significance of this particular opinion piece? Btw, you also quote, ""Clearly, however, something seems to happen to Clinton when the task is asking people to vote for her." You would need to specify what happens. TFD (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

To add comments by some journalists is very useful (respected or not much), but this sentence, in specific, sounds too promotional, misplaced comments for an encyclopaedia, it seems like some Clinton´s presidential campaing ad; tomorrow is the presidential election, and Misplaced Pages must maintain the "Neutrality" and avoid biased content, besides the sentence is too vague/imprecise, "no clarity", Not encyclopaedic value at all. Salutes Ajax1995 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't my area of Wiki-expertise, but I agree with the above comments. I tend to be quite tentative when it comes to opinion essay-like and/or informally-toned news articles, because they don't give us much to work with in a Misplaced Pages article. On top of this, uncompromised neutrality is top-importance in an article about a current major presidential candidate; if we wish to include all significant viewpoints on Hillary, we have to use reliable sources (from e.g. reliable news services) that are formally written and reflect all viewpoints and are therefore neutral. The use of essay-like news articles, unless those articles are particularly notable, isn't helpful. As far as this particular news article and the use of it as a source goes, it falls under the essay-like and informally-toned categories, and therefore doesn't offer much to work with. Linguist Moi. 18:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I was seeking an explanation for the complete mischaracterization in the edit summary, first and foremost. The excuse given for the removal of this content was completely invalid, because it suggested the content was written in Misplaced Pages's voice, thus casting aspersions on whomever added it (not me, by the way). As to the content itself, it provided context for what preceded it:

Her favorability ratings dropped, however, after she left office and began to be viewed in the context of partisan politics again. By September 2015, with her 2016 presidential campaign underway and beset by continued reports regarding her private email usage at the State Department, her ratings had slumped to some of her lowest levels ever. During 2016 she acknowledged that: "I'm not a natural politician, in case you haven't noticed." Journalist Indira A. R. Lakshmanan, who has covered Clinton extensively both as a presidential candidate and as secretary of state, believes that Clinton's persona is almost completely different in the two roles and that while Clinton definitely has the political skills that an officeholder needs, "Clearly, however, something seems to happen to Clinton when the task is asking people to vote for her.

With that context missing, the paragraph seems incomplete. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems UNDUE to me. A journalist's opinion should not appear in another person's biographical article. It doesn't matter if the journalist is prominent or not--an opinion is still an opinion. The only place where it could potentially appear would be in the journalist's own biographical article.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with removing it - even though the rationale in the edit summary is invalid and POV. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Why does the email controversy section need a screen capture of HRC speaking at a press conference?

The image added to the email controversy section by Triggerhippie4 adds nothing informational to the article. It's not an illustration of an email controversy. I would like to see what other editors think.- MrX 23:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove - I don't see any value added by it. -- Dane2007 23:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove. Adds nothing unique to the article. Shearonink (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of removed content

I see, the speculative sentence about the first female thing has been restored, never before such sentence had been included in the lede until the last hours, just, right now in the election day, when the things must be neautral here in wikipedia. Potential winner or not, this is speculative information; I don´t see these kind of statements are included in the Donald Trump´s lead; or even in the past, in the past election day I don´t see things like that: Obama will become the first black president after hundred of years in the USA; please revisit in the future if she were to be elected. Ajax1995 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it breaches WP:NPOV or is speculative; it merely states a fact. It's not an "opinion" that Clinton will be the first female U.S. president if she wins the 2016 election, and it's not as if it implies she will or will not win the election. Linguist Moi. 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included, per WP:Crystal ball. In the same manner, there are many reliable third-party sources about her prospective impeachment if she becomes president (see this, this, etc...), but I think this would be equally premature.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh puh-lease, what does this have to do with WP:CRYSTALBALL??? IF she is elected THEN she will be the first female US president. There is absolutely nothing speculative about that statement nor does it make any predictions. Come on people! Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I have never understood why people insist on leaving this obvious and important fact out of the lede - that if elected she would be the first female president of the U.S. - but it has been discussed here before and consensus seemed to be to leave it out. Go figure. To me it is obvious that it should be there, but by the time we could get a new consensus, the issue will be settled. So let it go for now. If she wins, presumably we can then add "first female president elect" or "will be the first female president" to the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not WP:CRYSTAL to say Hillary would be the first female head of state/govt in the U.S. if she wins. It's not CRYSTAL to say Trump would be the oldest ever president if he wins. Those are both facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The issue of her prospective impeachment should she become president is backed up by a lot of RS, and it was mentioned by President Obama. Perhaps it is already due. But is it easier for you if we create a separate topic discussion about this? Both are speculative in my opinion.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Impeached before she's even elected. Gotta love the Republican obstructionist Senate. That would belong in Presidency of Hillary Clinton, if it actually moves towards an impeachment. Otherwise it's just red meat for the base and we don't indulge in that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Should we create a separate topic discussion? The current heading is confusing. She will never be the first female head of state; I guess one could argue Cleopatra was? First US female president perhaps. With regards to her prospective impeachment, as I said, it seems due as per weight of RS; it was even mentioned by Obama.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's stick to the subject here. It is whether to include "would be the first female president of the U.S." in the lede. "Impeachment" is a total red herring. Even if "threats to impeach" were to be added to the article (which I would oppose) it would certainly not go in the lede. Anyhow this whole discussion is a waste of time. As I pointed out above, within 24 hours (God willing) we will know whether she is the first female president-elect, or not. We are not going to get consensus to include it before then so let's just drop it, can we? --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Both are WP:Crystal ball. Why don't you think her prospective impeachment, should she become president, is significant? The American people may be voting for President Kaine without knowing it. (Again, WP:Crystal ball though). But the weight of reliable third-party sources, and the fact that President Obama has talked about it, would appear to make it relevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, not gonna waste any more time on this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The article already says that she was the first female major party nominee, which seems to make the added text redundant. bd2412 T 19:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

She lost

Can we please spell it out in the lede?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead already says Clinton won the popular vote but was defeated in the Electoral College by her Republican rival Donald Trump on November 8, 2016. clpo13_(talk) 19:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. This sounds POV to me. It sounds like an attempt to make it sound like she didn't really lose. She did.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Stating the facts is not POV. Anyone remotely familiar with American politics knows what that statement means. clpo13_(talk) 19:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

First, it is inappropriate to have this statement when all of the votes have yet to be counted. Second, the source must be changed regardless. The sources states:

"The Democratic candidate looks almost certain to win the popular vote, with the final ballots left to be counted. The margin is small – with only 0.2 percentage points between the two candidates – but Ms Clinton is winning and looks set to continue to do so."

It follows that the article is not "tating the facts," as you suggest. "lmost certain to win" does not equate with 'has won.' And with a 0.2 percentage difference, this statement is very, very premature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.208.111 (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Flip the electoral college and popular votes part. The electoral college is the more important part. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's backwards. That's not the way to put it. It should say something like "Clinton lost the presidential election to Donald Trump on November 8, 2016, although she narrowly won the popular vote." --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph should just say she won. We can include the popular vote v. electoral vote in the final paragraph. Otherwise foreign readers are bound to be confused.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I like MelanieN's wording. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec)On second thought I don't think the popular vote should be in the lede at all. Confusing to non-Americans. It should just say who won. Add the popular vote to the "general election" section after it is finalized. (In other words I agree with Zigzig.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, can someone please update the lede as per consensus then? I edited it once in the last 24 hours, so I can't.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think mentioning the popular vote is undue in the lead. It should be mentioned in the body however. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a highly notable historical fact, and has been mentioned in the lede of the comparable Al Gore article for as long as that article has existed - "Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College". bd2412 T 20:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's why I suggest a compromise of just saying she lost in the first paragraph, and mentioning the popular vote v. electoral college issue in the last paragraph of the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Gore and Clinton ledes on this point. Gore's is written in the active voice for the win and the loss. Clinton's is written in active voice for the win and passive voice for the loss. I'm not sure whether it's a substantive issue.Jthept (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of the popular vote stuff only makes an already excessively long lede even longer, and adds undue weight to the statement. It is confusing to those who are not familiar with the American system, and, due to it being quite irrelevant, gives it the appearance of not being of a neutral point of view.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think our handling of the matter should be consistent with Al Gore and Samuel J. Tilden. bd2412 T 21:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we please add "she lost" to the first paragraph of the lede? Most readers won't scroll down.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:OPENPARA, the first paragraph is meant to establish a person's notability. She's not notable for losing an election. clpo13_(talk) 21:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed about not mentioning the vote or electorate count in the first paragraph. It was a close election but not extremely or notably so, and most other articles about Presidents, foreign heads of state, and other politicians do not describe the vote margins in the first sentence of the lede. I don't think any reader of Misplaced Pages for the next hundred years would get confused as to whether she won the election if the first sentence says that she was the Democratic nominee for President without mentioning that she became President. However, we could say something like "she ran unsuccessfully for president as the Democratic nominee". That's a little awkward, but something like that works too. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree too. She's notable for being FLOTUS, Senator, Sec State. Not for losing the nomination in 2008 and the general in 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. It is perfectly notable that she lost two presidential bids.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You're not listening to what we're saying. Of course we include that she lost two presidential elections, but we don't say she lost in the opening paragraph. McCain and Romney's bios mention in their opening paragraph that they were presidential nominees, but it says nothing about whether they won or lost. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That is true - look at Al Gore, Mitt Romney, and John McCain (each of whom, incidentally, also lost two presidential bids). They are good models to follow here. bd2412 T 22:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Let's leave it out as. It's not among the most noteworthy facts about the subject. Al Gore seems to be a good model for how this should be treated in the lead.- MrX 22:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It seems to me that this is the most important aspect of her career: she tried to break the 'glass ceiling' (as she puts it), and lost. Also, why don't we say she was First Lady in the first paragraph?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We need to mention first that she lost and I do not think "won the popular vote" is accurate. She won more votes than Trump. But that should be mentioned because we want to know how close it was. Johnson, Stein, McMullin and many people I can't name were also losing candidates and it is relevant and we want to know how well she did. TFD (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The fact that she lost the election is mentioned in the lead. There's no reason to put it in the first paragraph. clpo13_(talk) 22:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It is the first time a First Lady tried to run for president and lost twice.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that makes much difference. Mitt Romney was the first Mormon to run for president and lose twice. John McCain was the first Vietnam POW to run for president and lose twice. bd2412 T 23:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Jesus. This thread might as well be called "What's the best way to spike the ball and dance in the endzone?" The fact that she lost isn't really worthy of the lede, and certainly not the beginning of the lede. The fact that she ran twice is of value. Personally, I think the specifics of how she lost (she'll win the popular vote by millions, but barely lose the Electoral College) is better explored in the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Millions"? Still shilling? Even CNN (), which operated as an extension of the Clinton campaign through stretches of the election, has her "winning" the popular vote at 47.7%-47.5%. Yeah, 0.2%. That's about a difference of a little over 200,000 out of a total of under 120,000,000. As for "barely" losing the election itself, it was 279 to 228. It wasn't even close. Get a hold of yourself. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Look people. The only thing that matters is whether sources say "she won the popular vote but lost the election", all of your opinions are really irrelevant here. So... , , , , , , , ... and EVERY OTHER freakin' news organization.

Also, here is Al Gore's article: " Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College to Republican George W. Bush"

Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forget that nobody's opinion here matters but your own. That and Scjessey (talk · contribs)'s, right? Seriously, many of us have had to deal with your ideological, pro-Clinton and pro-DNC editing for months, and now you're trying to do this? Have some dignity. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No, my opinion doesn't matter either, what matters is reliable sources. Please strike your personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I have tweaked the wording, indicating that she lost the election, failing to obtain a majority in the electoral college, despite narrowly winning the popular vote. Hopefully this is now a suitable compromise. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that reads nicely and clearly explains the somewhat complicated result. Ravensfire (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

bloodofox Scrolling through this exchange gave me chills. I'm very thankful that I didn't venture onto this page during the actual election. Tell me, was WikiLeaks or her Clinton Foundation criminal investigation ever mentioned in this article? It's frightening looking at the edit history. Recently, one user added context to the reaction to her repeated lies, correctly stating that they led to "questions regarding her honesty and trustworthiness." It was almost immediately reverted to the highly sanitized version, "used by her opponents to question her honesty." As if only those meanie Republicans would stoop so low to attack the rightful heir to the Obama throne using her own lies against her. I really value Misplaced Pages, but mainly use it for scientific articles, history, and other immediately verifiable facts. I had no idea there was a seedy underbelly of activist editors who are working around the clock ready to scrub anything that fits WP:JDLI from the pages of politicians and their related scandals. Countless WP:RS refer to Hillary's email scandal as "the biggest political scandal since Watergate," and yet, its page refers to the scandal as the infinitely softer and non-triggering term of "controversy." I've about given up. The emotion/opinion motivated contributors far outnumber the contributors striving for neutrality, so it looks like I will just recommend that people avoid Misplaced Pages for seeking any information regarding American politics. It's such a shame. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please stop using hysterical hyperbolic rhetoric since it's not conducive to a rational discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

4 paragraph rule in lead?

Yes, she lost and all, but I want to bring our attention please, to the 6 paragraphs in the lead? We need to keep neutral here, we need to stick to the rules of ALL our articles, and we need to reduce this to the standard 4 paragraphs. Does anyone want to start collapsing some of this?Charlotte135 (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we could easily delete "She favored allowing pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, expanding and protecting LGBT and women's rights, and instituting family support through paid parental leave and universal preschool". It sounds like campaign advertising.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No, we couldn't easily delete these, since they were absolutely central to her campaign and philosophy. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No drama. Solved. Just collapsed a couple of paragraphs into each other instead.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Retirement

Shall we start a retirement section? Has she disclosed what she intends to do?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

A post-election section should be added once something happens post-election. However thus far, her last public actions were campaign-related. She'll probably retire, but we haven't heard word yet.   Spartan7W §   22:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if she intends to give more private speeches, and if the Clinton Foundation will be dismantled.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't see why it would be. Based on Trump's post-election comments, he's not going to do anything about it. bd2412 T 23:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the FBI still investigating the CF?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Was it ever, really? bd2412 T 23:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"We already know the FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation (some reports say the investigation is stalled, others say it is still active), so is this information being looked into? There are still so many unanswered questions about the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information."Zigzig20s (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not unless she says she's retiring. On "Between Two Ferns" (I know, I know), she said that if Trump won, she'd continue fighting. Vague as that is, I doubt she'll simply fade away. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sure she will be doing something hence retirement would be incorrect. She may run again. TFD (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we add the FBI investigation to the lede?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE.... Conservapedia is that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ugh...please go back to Breitbart. Take the gravedancing elsewhere. Acalamari 11:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Pantsuits

Really surprised not to see a mention of one of her primary symbols here (cf. Pantsuit Nation). A good source that goes in depth: http://www.racked.com/2015/4/13/8371145/hillary-clinton-pantsuits  czar 01:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, her Chairman Mao unisex outfits are a major part of her appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.199.0 (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, I also see no mention of Trump's ill-fitting suits or his choices in neckwear (or even his trademark red hat) at Donald Trump. Can we not devolve into fashion commentary? General Ization 03:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The line "In November, Clinton lost the general election to Republican Donald Trump." bothers me. You can say I'm a bit biased, but every credible media outlet has described it as a stunning and historical defeat considering Trump's odds. Again, food for thought since I speak in a partisan manner. Point is, I would like some opinions on how to expand that a bit considering it was probably the most consequential & significant race of her life.. Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a "surprise upset" would be appropriate if sourced with relevant articles. The most conservative model, fivethirtyeight, gave her 70% by election morning, others 80,90% and above. I do think it is prudent, but measured.   Spartan7W §   04:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Exactly what I mean. I think we're getting on the right track here.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 16:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's an article from Politico which we know is left-leaning. The title says it all; "Trump pulls off biggest upset in U.S. history" and there are plenty more where that came from.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 16:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

victory in popular vote

It should be mentioned more explicitly with a dedicated headline that Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote. This is huge and historic and must not be forgotten. (Misrepresentations of popular majority and presidents only happened 5 times in USA history so far).David P Minde (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yet another thread on this? Yes, if after all the votes are counted that turns out to be true, then that is worth a 5-10 word mention in the section that analyzes the election. We are not there yet. And as I have said above, the notability of people who did not win presidential elections is not not really a matter of how and why they did not lose the election, but the fact that they lost. - Wikidemon (talk)

That's sort of like saying that we can't say she "lost" the election until the electoral college actually votes. And of course it matters HOW she lost! Winning the popular vote and losing the election is a big deal, come on, you're not gonna sit there and pretend otherwise! Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Enough already. The candidate you've been supporting by way of ridiculously POV and ideological edits for months flatly lost the election. Knock it off with the absurd puffery. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek. There's no reason to wait for the complete results, just as there is no reason to wait for the EC to formally push Trump over 270. I could go along with a compromise that says that she is "projected to win the popular vote" or "will very likely win the popular vote" to reflect the language that reliable sources are using. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, her winning the popular vote is obviously going to be mentioned both in the lead and in the body, at least once the results are final/official (but I don't object to include it now per other editors' rationales above). She appears to be winning with a huge margin, much bigger than Al Gore won the popular vote with, which was also a huge issue back in 2000. In any other country the person winning the most votes would be considered to have legitimately won the election, and the debate about the bizarre US election system has already started. Her winning the popular vote is already a huge issue extensively covered in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Elections aren't decided in the United States by the popular vote. When this happened with Gore v. Bush, the same questions were asked then and absolutely nothing came of it. This sort of dialogue is pretty pointless until anyone makes a serious attempt at changing the system. This has yet to happen—even after eight years of Bush. And here we are with Trump. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody's saying that they are. Nobody's proposing that the article says they are. And Al Gore's article does in fact mention he won the popular vote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry. This just makes the Democrats sound like sore losers. She lost. End of story.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please focus on content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Phrase it as Clinton lost the 2016 election although she did win the popular vote. Putting it as "Despite winning the popular vote ..." is a fairly strong POV push. Ravensfire (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be phrased neutrally, as in: she received the most votes, but fewer delegates to the electoral college than her opponent. --Tataral (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, winning the popular vote is irrelevant to the election. As you pointed out, the United States uses the Electoral College to decide the presidential election. That's the only "winning" in US presidential elections. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant to the election. It is a very notable fact about the election. And really, what your opinion about it, or mine, doesn't matter - what matters is what reliable sources say. And these all emphasize the fact. Also, can you please stop attacking and insulting other editors?

@Ravensfire, yeah you can remove the "despite" and phrase it differently if you think that's a neutrality problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

While you may wish otherwise given your chosen candidate—and you've certainly worked overtime for the past few months to make the site as pro-Clinton as possible—the US simply doesn't use direct democracy to decide the presidential election, it uses indirect democracy: the Electoral College. The popular vote is irrelevant. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring your personal attack, again, nobody is saying that US election is decided by popular vote. That's a classic straw man. What people are saying is that the popular vote should be mentioned because virtually all reliable sources reporting on the election are talking about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

However this is phrased, it should be consistent across all articles describing this scenario. bd2412 T 15:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In modern times (post WW2) there's only two cases, Clinton 2016 and Gore 2000.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why "modern times" distinguishes this from any other period during which the electoral college has operated. bd2412 T 16:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, because some relevant laws were changed in the meantime. There are four cases of this happening overall, 2016, 2000, 1888 and 1876. The law was changed in 1876 and then a related law was changed in 1911. But roughly I agree with you that this should be treated consistently, but with the 2000 election being the most relevant precedent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

There was also the United States presidential election, 1824, where Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but there was no electoral college majority, and John Quincy Adams was selected by Congress. This is mentioned in the lede in Andrew Jackson. What law was changed in 1876 and 1911? The electoral college is set forth in the Constitution, and not in statute law. bd2412 T 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This is what the Al Gore lede says by the way: "In the 2000 presidential election, in what was one of the closest presidential races in history, Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College to Republican George W. Bush". I think the Clinton lede should say, "In the 2016 presidential election, Clinton won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College to Republican Donald J. Trump." Nothing controversial about that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it may well be time to change that as well. The simple fact is that the popular vote has no influence on winning the presidency. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bloodofox that it is irrelevant. Also, which RS would be cite? I think it would be POV to cite RS which endorsed HRC for POTUS.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

" I think it would be POV to cite RS which endorsed HRC for POTUS" - no, that's not how WP:RS works and it's sort of a ridiculous idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a major problem we had in editing Misplaced Pages throughout the campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? As with Gore winning the popular note, Clinton winning the popular vote is getting extensive mention in news coverage about the election results. Not because anyone thinks that she or Gore won the presidency because of it, but because it's a very notable fact about the race. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it's a notable fact about the race, but it's not THE notable fact about the race. The ultimate result should be first, then the notable oddity. Switching it around and putting that oddity first seems like Misplaced Pages is trying to excuse the result of the election. Yes, the popular result is notable but the overall most notable point about the election is that Clinton lost. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with switching it around. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevance in US Presidential Election

Placing this next to the actual election results reads as if it is some kind of apologetic concession rather than straightforward reporting. These campaigns were geared to win electoral votes, not the popular vote. Both know how the American presidential election works. Clinton's 0.2% () popular vote edge is also incredibly small to the point of irrelevance. Placing losing a presidential election next to pointlessly "winning" the popular vote looks like yet another attempt at presenting Clinton in the most flattering light possible on the site, something a few users here in particular have been doing for months. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion, and mine, about the election, doesn't really matter. All that matters is what sources say. And as shown above, a wide range of sources emphasizes the fact that she won the popular vote and lost the election. Because, no shit, that's notable. Frankly, trying to exclude that fact from the lede or the article is sort of ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Clinton won more votes. It is a measure of how close the race was. Similarly if she had received only 35% of the vote and lost in a landslide, we would mention that too. TFD (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think 0.2% is absolutely negligible.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That's great. Reliable sources think otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's no consensus. I suppose you could start an RfC?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Gawd, not another stalling tactic. There's a ton of sources. It's neutral. Stop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, many editors disagree with you. There's no consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really. And trying to prevent consensus when there's a ton of sources to support something is actually WP:GAMEing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

{actually I guess this would be more of Abuse of process. Regardless, it's disruptive)Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Who are these "many editors"? As far as I can tell, only you (Zigzig20s) and bloodofox are opposed to this. clpo13_(talk) 16:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been doing this throughout the campaign. We couldn't add anything remotely negative despite countless RS, for example we had to do an RfC to add the Goldman Sachs speeches. Why is this suddenly no longer the policy we should follow?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on policy-based arguments, and reliable sources, there is clearly consensus to include the fact that she won the popular vote (in the same way this is included in the Gore article and has always been). A user's personal views are not relevant; some of us write an international encyclopedia based on coverage in reliable sources from across the globe and are not part of any domestic political campaigns, you know. If the world press reported something similar about a presidential election in Equatorial Guinea, we would certainly include it in the biography of the candidate who received the most votes. --Tataral (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The Goldman Sachs speeches were probably covered in the international press too?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't participate in any debates about speeches, so I know nothing about that, and anyway, a few speeches seem trivial compared to the result of the presidential election, and the way this is phrased here, it looks to me as if you are talking about an unsuccessful attempt that was rejected in an RfC or something to use those speeches to smear the article subject in the past. --Tataral (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the RfC led to consensus for inclusion.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

So what are you complaining about, then? --Tataral (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

We should follow the same rules when there is no consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Of course this must be included as something highly important not only for this election, but for the US political system in general. This is everywhere (just a random source), and this is the reason why the electoral system in US is considered non-democratic in many countries and by many people in US, ironically including even Donald Trump. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Of course it will be mentioned in the article that she won the popular vote but lost the election. There is clear consensus here to include this highly relevant and universally reported fact, and it should be added if it is not already there (I'm traveling and my computer access is limited).. I believe this was the fifth time in U.S. history this happened, and that should be noted also. MelanieN alt (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI I rephrased the "lost/won" sentence at the end of the lead to hopefully make it clearer for international readers. It now reads: On November 8, 2016, Clinton lost the election to Republican rival Donald Trump, failing to obtain a majority in the electoral college despite scoring a higher count of the popular vote nationally. — JFG 05:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

But sources don't use that language. They say she won the popular vote. We need to reflect that language per npov. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Fine. Back to despite winning the national count of popular vote. — JFG 08:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• We could also note that 44% of 231m eligible voters "voted" none of the above, 26% voted HRC, 26% DT, and 4% other. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Was this an attempt at humor? On the off chance that this was a serious attempt to make a point, it could be noted - but isn't, anywhere - what percent of eligible voters actually voted in a given election. If 56% of eligible voters cast a vote in this election, that's about par for the course for the last few decades. MelanieN alt (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove popular vote speculation

Why does this page assert that Clinton has won the popular vote? As far as I can see, they are still counting. CNN are projecting Trump will win the popular vote. It is bad enough to have it in the article, let alone the lead. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:90D4:BA90:70C:D058 (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No, they aren't. The site you linked has a larger number next to Clinton's name than Trump's. When and if a reliable source has a larger number next to Trump's name, we'll make the change after that point. Unless and until we have a more recent, reliable source with numbers that support a change, we won't make a change. --Jayron32 19:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, she has popular votes right now, but might not end up with more. If you click on the 'popular vote' tab, it contains the same numbers (with Clinton's high score), but highlights Trump, calling him the 'projected winner' above. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:90D4:BA90:70C:D058 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that I am not trying to say Trump will win the popular vote: I don't have a clue. What I am saying is it is completely wrong to be asserting as a fact in an important article about an important event that Clinton will end up the popular vote winner. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:90D4:BA90:70C:D058 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Then we can turn to what reliable sources are reporting: "Hillary Clinton lost the election but is winning the popular vote". bd2412 T 20:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Despite the CNN page I linked to above that is projecting Trump to be the popular vote winner? 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:90D4:BA90:70C:D058 (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The headline of the article you have linked to does not even say she has won the popular vote. It says she is winning (present tense). That could change as the votes are counted. Am I missing something? 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:90D4:BA90:70C:D058 (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The CNN page you linked to above is projecting: "Trump 47.5% votes 59,827,920" and "Clinton 47.7% votes 60,136,735". That would put Clinton over 300,000 votes ahead in the popular vote. bd2412 T 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you clicked the tab called 'popular vote'? It says Clinton is 300,000 votes ahead, but only with 93% counted and projects Trump as the overall winner.2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:90D4:BA90:70C:D058 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be a projection of Trump as the overall winner of the election. However, there is no deadline. I would be fine waiting until an official final vote count comes out to include the information. bd2412 T 20:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

user:bd2412, he raises a valid point here. With all of the votes not having been counted, even the link you posted stating that she is winning, as opposed to has won, we are wrong in having this information included in this article as though it is a fact that she won. It should be removed.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It's 99% counted and she's won it. The only question is by how much. She might have won it by more than Gore, Nixon or Kennedy .Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

We may have reached the point where it is mathematically impossible for Trump to receive more total votes than Clinton based on the possible number of votes left. The latest reported result says that Clinton "currently leads the popular vote 60,467,245 to Trump’s 60,071,650 for a difference of 395,595", with over 99% of the votes counted. bd2412 T 16:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

And it does not matter whether or not Clinton got more votes, but that reliable sources say she did. As the respected essay, "Verifiability, not truth", says, "Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source."

And note, no one is claiming that the fact Clinton won more votes means Trump's election is illegitimate. Had the election been determined by total votes, both campaigns would have approached the race differently, and people who did not vote because Clinton or Trump were certain to win their states would have come out.

TFD (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a different election if all votes were counted as in other countries. But we can not speculate about results. Perhaps she would win a lot more? What we can and must do is to include what RS tell about it . My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with holding off on this information unit it is completely done and official, after all, Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, and we do not have a deadline to meet.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not speculation to report the facts that appear in reliable sources. But it is speculation to second guess reliable sources. Lots of things that reliable sources report as true turn out to be false. Do you have any policy or guideline reasons not to accept facts as reported in reliable sources? TFD (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a policy that states which source to pick over another, when they are all reliable yet have conflicting information? Again, there is no harm to this article to wait a short amount of time to include information that will be accurate, well sourced, and verifiable. There is harm however, when we had something stated as fact, and sourced by articles that did not substantiate this claim of fact. That was not encyclopedic. And that is exactly why this information was temporarily removed.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any source at this point which disputes that Clinton will win the popular vote? The latest count has her up by over half a million votes. bd2412 T 02:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

MordeKyle, no reliable sources conflict about Clinton having a higher number of votes. Do you have any policy or guideline reasons not to accept facts as reported in reliable sources? TFD (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: Not that I'm aware of. @The Four Deuces: I'm not disputing facts. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't include facts. When she wins the popular vote, by all means, include it in the article. When this information was removed, the article stated that Hillary had won the popular vote, and then cited a source that said she was currently winning the popular vote. It was wrong for this information to be included in this article at that time. If it is statistically impossible for Trump to win the popular vote, and you have a source that says that, then include the information. I am not contesting this, so stop acting like I am. I do feel however, keeping WP:BALL and WP:NOTNEWS in mind, especially considering the evolving nature of this data, we are best to wait to include the data once it is stable and/or official. That is all.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Most current vote count

We currently cite the NYT page http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

As of my reading it now, saying updated 3:04PM it says 60,071,781 Clinton 59,791,135 Trump.

It appears Huffington Post may have a more current count: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/results/president

As of my reading now it says 60,122,876 Clinton 59,821,874 Trump. Should we go with that? Guessing percentage is roughly the same. Ranze (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as this is very subjective to the source being used, live information like this probably should not be on Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure about the policy on this by any means, but every news outlet seems to have a different count. Maybe we should just remove this information until it is all finalized.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Either that or make a noncommittal statement such as "As of November 10, final votes were still being counted. Preliminary results showed a very close totals for the popular vote." Or say that they are within approximately 300,000 out of 120 million votes cast. The key is, don't worry too much about it, as there is no deadline and we will have an official figure eventually. it'll never bee accurate to the last vote, because every recount would generate a different result, and nobody has any reason to do a recount. . - Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: I think the only real difficulty with this is that there are so many different numbers being reported as "current" right now. Which one would we use? Then we run the risk of using a source considered bias by some. I'm not well versed in this subject, nor am I well versed in how to handle these discrepancies, but I feel temporary exclusion is the safest option.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's why I suggested being noncommittal. All of the credible sources say the popular vote was close based on votes counted to date so we're safe saying that. If they all fall within a band of 300,000 then it would be safe to use that number (or 500,000 if that's the outer range of the sources we've found). - Wikidemon (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: I see what you are saying, I misread that before. Thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

So the situation is that all reliable sources show that that the difference is within 300,000 with Clinton ahead, but it is proposed in this talk section to not include the information that Clinton is ahead. Am I understanding correctly? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you got it right. These contributors suggested do not place reliably sourced and highly significant information on the page. Yes, that goes against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you aren't understanding that correctly. Since Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper we are in no rush to include information that is not complete or may not be accurate. The suggestion was, to WAIT to include this information until the counts were final, as many reliable sources had conflicting numbers. Again, as I stated above and before, we have no deadline, we don't have to be first to break the story, we just have to be accurate and properly sourced.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

By that rationale, an argument can be made that the article shouldn't show Trump as winning the Electoral College either, since they haven't voted. Perhaps it is enough for now to say Trump defeated Clinton in the election, but leave all the details out until everything is done and dusted. Also, bear in mind this is the main biography, so such details aren't really important anyway. There are campaign articles and election articles for all that stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That argument could be made, but before you do, you may want to read the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to see why the apparent winner of the election is considered the President Elect. That being said, it isn't exactly an accurate comparison you are making. As far as I know, all of the major news sources have identical electorate numbers. The issue here really is that major sources have conflicting popular vote numbers. This is why I have been explaining over and over that we should wait to include this information so that we may be encyclopedic. We are not breaking news here.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

With the numbers changing constantly it seems prudent to either be vague or wait until the numbers are finalized. It will not be long before the totals are in, and at this point two states have not even officially said who won. PackMecEng (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

We should just post the latest results posted and note they are incomplete. The latest results will have the highest number of votes. As a reader it is more important for me to know roughly how many votes each candidate received than to wait weeks until every result is finalized. TFD (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest using a range for each candidate since different reliable sources have different numbers.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason they have different numbers is that as more results come in they get updated and some sources are quicker to add the new numbers. TFD (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

99% of the vote has been counted and the remaining votes are in California, Washington and New York - Clinton strongholds - so there's basically no chance in hell that her winning the popular vote will be reversed, assuming in the first place that there is actually enough votes left to flip it . I'm going to restore the text then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I support that at this point. The count may be further refined; the fact of the popular vote win is settled. bd2412 T 20:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On November 8, 2016, Clinton lost the election to Republican rival Donald Trump, failing to obtain a majority in the electoral college. However, she won the popular votes. Reference: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/ 67.68.24.93 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

On November 8, 2016, Clinton lost the election to Republican rival Donald Trump, failing to obtain a majority in the electoral college. However, she won the majority of the popular vote in 2016 presidential election. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/

67.68.24.93 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The inclusion of the popular vote is currently being discussed in sections above. See Talk:Hillary Clinton#Remove popular vote speculation and Talk:Hillary Clinton#victory in popular vote, among others. clpo13_(talk) 23:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton blames loss on Comey

Clinton has blamed loss on Comey's letter as well as his later announcement that there was nothing to change his view that she should not be charged . She has also explained why she thinks these actions made her lose. Is it notable enough for being included? 59.89.46.161 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is a biography of Clinton's entire life, so election-related specifics like this are probably best left for Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016‎. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD

For your consideration, I give you Never Hillary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Article Predicts the Future

The summary section indicates that Hillary Clinton failed to obtain a majority in the electoral college. At the present time (11/15/2016), the electoral college has not yet even voted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.143.51 (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. Strictly speaking, we should rephrase it to something along the lines of "failed to win enough support to win the electoral college," or something like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The final paragraph of the intro reads: On November 8, 2016, Clinton lost the election to Republican rival Donald Trump, failing to obtain the necessary 270 votes in the electoral college, despite winning the national popular vote.

I would suggest you replace that with: On November 8, 2016, Clinton lost the election to Republican rival Donald Trump, failing to obtain the necessary 270 votes in the electoral college, despite receiving a plurality of the national popular vote.

I believe this is more precise - she did not receive a majority of the popular vote, which might be implied by "won". Furthermore, I believe that it is a bit of a misnomer to even discuss 'winning" the popular vote, as that is not what the two candidates compete over.

RaphaelvonT (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thank you- MrX 12:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• FA-Class politics articles
• Top-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• FA-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• FA-Class United States articles of High-importance
• FA-Class Arkansas articles
• High-importance Arkansas articles
• WikiProject Arkansas articles
• FA-Class Cape Cod and the Islands articles
• Mid-importance Cape Cod and the Islands articles
• WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands articles
• FA-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• FA-Class United States Government articles
• Top-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Mid-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class New York (state) articles
• High-importance New York (state) articles
• FA-Class Women's History articles
• High-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• FA-Class Women writers articles
• Mid-importance Women writers articles
• WikiProject Women articles
• WikiProject Women writers articles
• FA-Class WikiProject Women articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page