Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 50
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Hillary Clinton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| 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)
- 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)
"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)