Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Tense correction

the very first sentence of this article begins, Hillary Clinton is a "politician and diplomat". Without detracting from her many accomplishments, she presently is an academic; she was a politician but is no longer; she was a diplomat, but is no longer. She is active with universities and her foundation, but not presently in public service. 96.20.111.52 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ROLEBIO: she is not notable as an academic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

2016 election

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

Your comment is not accurate. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is proven. Moreover, Hillary conceded the 2016 election the next day. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

your source that russian interference was proven? That has been debunked. 2600:1009:B12F:9F6F:A596:D146:6B11:7ADE (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The article about how it is proven that I linked above has 606 unique inline citations, a further reading section, and relevant external links. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"while winning the popular vote"

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

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

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

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

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

Photo for infobox

Should we update to any of the pics from the 2020s? The one from 2016 is... from 2016. That, and if you look at List of first ladies of the United States, there is another photo of Clinton being used.

Incumbent photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Hillary_Clinton_by_Gage_Skidmore_4_%28cropped%29.jpg

Suggestions:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Former_United_States_Secretary_of_State_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_at_the_U.S._Department_of_State_on_September_26%2C_2023_in_Washington%2C_D.C._14_%28cropped%29.jpg

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

It depends on how recent you want to go. It's better to focus on a strong, high quality image with Clinton as the focus though, I think.

I also propose the first image:

File:Former United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the U.S. Department of State on September 26, 2023 in Washington, D.C. 14 (cropped).jpg

But I also believe that crops of:

File:Official Portrait of Former Secretary Clinton Unveiled at the U.S. Department of State on September 26, 2023 in Washington, D.C. 22.jpg

&

File:Official Portrait of Former Secretary Clinton Unveiled at the U.S. Department of State on September 26, 2023 in Washington, D.C. 21.jpg

would work well.

I think the first or third image would work best, with a lean towards the third one in my own personal preference. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I made a crop of the third image you proposed (File:Official Portrait of Former Secretary Clinton Unveiled at the U.S. Department of State on September 26, 2023 in Washington, D.C. 21 - Crop.jpg)

I think it's better than the first image you gave as her smile seems slightly more natural than her smile in the first image. Of course, they are ultimately very similar images so it doesn't matter that much in the long run.

I just hope we can update the lead image ASAP.

Also, should the current lead image (Clinton in 2016) be moved down the article in the section about her 2016 presidential campaign? It seems it would fit. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes; it would probably be best to move that lead image down there.

Activity on this article is very slow. Technically, it's consensus now that the image needs to be changed, but only a few people have voted. Somebody should bring this to other people's attentions. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Support changing, against first two images. How about this 2020 image? High quality, the expression is nice enough, the hair is right and everything.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MJK_70666_Hillary_Clinton_(Hillary,_Berlinale_2020).jpg

I would've personally cropped it a little further, cuz she is quite close to "the camera", if that makes sense. Nurken (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nurken I don't know; on one hand it is a higher quality (in terms of pixels) but on the other hand it is still somewhat old (Feb 2020 compared to Sep 2023).

I think I have finally found the "perfect" fit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hillary_Clinton_53663388304_o_(1).jpg

1. It's newer than any other suggested image (April 2024)
2. Good image quality
3. Her general appearance is more appropriate for a portrait (not too close/far from the camera, eye contact, etc.)

𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I've heard it is not that good when someone else is in the frame and her head isn't positioned straight.. It looks like the 2016 image stays until something better comes up..

What about these two though? From the same category as yours.

File:Hillary Clinton 53663493900 o (1).jpg

File:Hillary Clinton 53663388489 o (1).jpg

Nurken (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

They both seem better than mine from that category. It's your choice to pick the specific one. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I also seek to change the lead image ASAP since I believe there is now consensus to update the image after over two months. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Support It is about time the lead image is changed. Either of them can work but @3df's suggestions are good too. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 21:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That SMILE! Eughh! The old one is good 68.57.163.100 (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Guys, can I please change the photo? I would rather put her official portrait as Secretary of State. BarfChimp445 (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Support in order to use more recent image. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

"Hillary Clinton (née Rodham)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hillary Clinton (née Rodham) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 29 § Tiny Particle redirects until a consensus is reached. Plant🌱man (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Typo in Early life and education Section

Hilary Clinton worked for Joseph Duffy’s campaign not Joseph Duffey’s campaign in 1970. Please fix. 108.41.82.214 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

"Duffey" appears to be the correct spelling, per the linked article. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Main image

The main image of Clinton should be her official portrait as secretary of state, as it is with every other politician including her husband. 2600:1011:B346:16E4:E92F:2BAC:2FD6:884C (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

That's not the case with John Kerry. I don't know whether there is any policy stating that a politician's Wikipedia image needs to be an official portrait. That's probably a best practice in many cases, but Hillary Clinton may or may not be best known for being a Secretary of State. She's known for many other things, and her official Secretary of State portrait is about 12 years old now. So there can be an argument to use a more recent image. I don't really care either way, just saying that "should be" is a bit strong. Kerdooskistalk 20:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This has been hashed out many times for this article - search the talk page archives. As far as I am aware it is not a policy, just a convention that often makes sense, but in this case I think not. Tvoz/talk 05:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a American thing that every politicians image MUST be the official portrait. Cenbutz1 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't HAVE to be the official portrait if they are known more for other things and there is consensus otherwise, such as there is for Clinton and John Kerry. It's just the official portrait is the norm for most politicians of any country. TheBritinator (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but I mean, in the area of American politics, they cry when, for example, the official portrait of Obama in the infobox is replaced by a current picture from 2025, although for other countries it is actually normal for previous heads of state to also use current pictures. Cenbutz1 (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. At the very least it should be reverted back to the 2016 image. I would consider this 2024 one a significant downgrade in quality. TheBritinator (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree. This is a bad image and should be reverted to the 2016 image or her official portrait as secretary of state. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I reverted to the 2016 image that had been stable and reinstated the editor's note asking that consensus be reached before making changes . That note should not have been removed as it is an ongoing request. Tvoz/talk 19:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

For the best. TheBritinator (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

High School

The part about her high school in “Early Life” does not make sense. It says she attended Maine South High School and then at the end of the paragraph it says she transferred to Maine South her senior year. In fact, she attended Maine East High School in Park Ridge Illinois, and she transferred to Maine South her senior year. 2601:246:4205:D050:6C17:370C:198:CF66 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2025

Modify the present age of Hillary Clinton from 77 to 78 2409:40E0:1039:C191:E017:91FF:FE3A:3C81 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: She is not yet 78 years old EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Updated Portrait photo

Update the photo and put on her first lady portrait or her secretary of state portrait ~2025-33795-51 (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NAVBOX sidebars

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.

---

I have reverted the addition of two of these to the same section of this article by a new editor who is focusing on navboxes and adding names to them. I think this needs discussion since they are visually intrusive and if one is due, it certainly seems strange that both can be due. The centrism one was added first, in a single edit that also added a source suggesting Clinton may be a centrist, . Despite the larger edit, it isn't really clear why she is part of a series about centrism specifically. Navboxes are not meant to be taxonomies. We have categories for those. They are a place for curating closely related subjects. Which, if either, navbox should be here? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

sock strike There are many pages on Wikipedia that have multiple sidebar navboxes, and as far as I'm aware there's no rule that sets the maximum amount of navboxes that can be added to a page (though I do agree that including more than two or three might be a bit confusing). As such I would reckon both navboxes should be here. There is substantial information on this page stating that Clinton is both centrist and liberal. And you specifically said on another talk page that Clinton could be added to one of the sidebars. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

All we have about her centrism is:

at a campaign event during her 2016 presidential campaign, she confirmed accusations of being "moderate and center", stating "I plead guilty". Jeffrey Isaac, writing in Public Seminar, identified Clinton as a "Centrist Liberal".

And this was added by you. To be included in a "part of a series" WP:SIDEBAR the subject must be tightly related, which the current article does not verify. A reader sent here from the template might wonder why they are here, so it needs writing out if she is tightly integrated to centrism. I'm interested as to what editors at this page think. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

It appears that all you did was ctrl+F "centrist" and didn't take more time to actually look into the article. In the early life section, it states that she grew up in a conservative household and campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964. Then in the foreign policy section of her political positions it is stated that her positions on foreign policy were to the right of Trump and supported by prominent Republican Senators. Those are just a few points from the article that indicate her bipartisan/centrist ideology. I would also argue that Hillary is as integral as her husband to the development of Clintonism and the New Democrat ideology that are integral to modern American centrism. Also, on another talk page you seemed to be OK with her being included in the Centrism sidebar, so I'm not sure why you seem to be constantly moving the goalpost. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

it states that she grew up in a conservative household and campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964 - which doesn't make her a centrist. You are familiar with movement in political views? Your interpretation here amounts to WP:OR. The article the SIDEBAR is linked to must describe the relation to the SIDEBAR. I am not the only editor who has pointed this out to you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

But you didn't see my other argument about how she was a progenitor of centrist ideologies like Clintonism and such? Should this be expanded upon in the article? RideTheLightning99 (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, I was hoping for input from others. But yes, if secondary sources are discussing this, it should be i the article. What secondary sources do discuss this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone else have thoughts on this please?

The discussion above 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.

External links

There are eleven links in three subsections. Seven links are under the subsection "Official" that is not in line with WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELMIN. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Betty Tucker

This is locked for edits, but the portion with her first lady of Arkansas links to Betty Tucker, the professional baseball player, when the real first lady to succeed her was a different Betty Tucker if someone can edit it ~2026-14793-06 (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing that to our attention. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2026

Bradley98765 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC) She was born at a young age

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Czello ^(music) 16:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2026

In the section "Health care and other policy initiatives," the hyperlink of the cited act in the sentence "she decided to support the bill, which became the Welfare Reform Act of 1996" currently incorrectly links to the page for the New York Welfare Reform Act of 1997. Please change the hyperlink to link to the page for the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, which is the correct act it is referring to. BFBlueWheels (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Revert of 5 April 2026

@UltraCobson: Please provide the substantive rationale for your reversion. Please see WP:DRNC. Beatrix TBS (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@UltraCobson: It appears from your silence that you no longer object to the edit you reverted. If that is not the case then please reply to my 5 April 2026 post within the next three days. Beatrix TBS (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

New photo

The current photo is 10 years old and Clinton has still been very active in public life since then. There is plenty of good photos of her that have been taken since then and we really ought to get a more modern photo Magnificentry (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Photo in infobox

The current infobox image is 10 years old. I propose it is changed to one of the images below, although they are not extremely recent, they are much more recent than the current image.

New infobox image

• 
  (current image)
• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D

Beatrix TBS (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

In regards to my previous post, I ask for people to vote on whether to keep the current image or update it (and to which image). If by 01/04/2026 there is no votes, I will choose an image to replace there current infobox image – assuming consensus taking into regard WP:EDITCON. >> Beatrix TBS (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we should just keep the current image. It's probably one of the most recognizable photos of her. I don't think it's as important to have a recent image of the person being discussed than it is to have an image most people would recognize them by. UltraCobson (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

People will recognize her either way. It's important Wikipedia doesn't appear stagnant When it comes to biographies of living people, and the infobox image is part of that. I like images B or D. Pleas For Politicking! (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree. I would be inclined to go with D as it is the most recent however I believe B would be the best image as it is a much higher quality. Beatrix TBS (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm a month late but any of these would be fine Magnificentry (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Fairly late to this but since no change has been made I think it's fair to say this discussion is still ongoing? Anyway, I believe B would probably be the best of these options. As much as I think the current photo is an iconic one, we should probably be using a more up to date photo for a living person.

Is mise le meas, Spudman1 (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I think D is the best but I would be fine with B. The current photo is a decade old, and we do seem to have consensus so I'll change it today or tommorow unless someone does it first Magnificentry (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2026

She attended Maine East for the first three years, and then transferred to Maine South for her senior year. Samsky2174 (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

"Mrs Clinton" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mrs Clinton has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 10 § Ms. Clinton until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

"HillaryRodham" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect HillaryRodham has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 10 § HillaryRodham until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

"Hillary 4 U and Me" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hillary 4 U and Me has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 10 § Hillary 4 U and Me until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

She stares into my soul

As soon as I open the article on my phone, I immediately get Hillary Clinton staring into my soul while she's smiling like a serial killer. Is there a different image we could use in the article? Any image is fine, as long as it doesn't insult her or promote propaganda for her Zaroth gunshoota (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)