Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:26, 2 August 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-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 the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Hillary Rodham Clinton, due to size or style considerations.

A fact from Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 April 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign began with a road trip from New York to Iowa in a customized Chevrolet Express van? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2015/April.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016

This edit request to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not June 22 but July 22

75.80.56.73 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Should we include the latest Wikileaks controversy in the controversy section? Just curious. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html Gaijin42 (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

No, not unless it is shown to involve Clinton directly and becomes a significant issue of due weight. And even there, possibly no, lest the section become a WP:COAT. The story is a couple days old. There's time to wait and see what comes of it. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because the e-mails apparently show the DNC rigged the system in favor of Clinton campaign. This article is about her campaign, not HRC herself, so it should appear here.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Based on the facts known now, this has little relevance to the campaign. As far as I know, the emails have not been authenticated. I think it would be WP:UNDUE to hang this controversy on Clinton's campaign, but I'm open to reconsidering my opinion if it develops further.- MrX 13:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I have seen zero media coverage suggesting the e-mails might be fake. Instead, the media suggests the DNC rigged the system in favor of HRC; this should be included.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Secret Goldman Sachs speeches

Could we please restore this discussion? The article STILL does not mention the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts, leading many in the media to wonder if she is hiding anything. The discussion was archived last month, but we really need to discuss this and find a way to make sure Misplaced Pages is not censored. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, it's very clear that you personally dislike Hillary Clinton's campaign, as any sane man can notice by looking at your contributions to this talk page. Please refrain from editing the page until you mature and learn to accept neutrality. Kabahaly (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. There is nothing personal about editing Misplaced Pages; we simply relay information found in the public domain. Why are we censoring the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts? There are countless reliable third-party sources about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Kabahaly is absolutely correct. Your single-minded focus on tarnishing Clinton is not in the spirit of the project. We had the discussion, the consensus was not to include, and there has been nothing new since then. Perhaps we can revisit this again if Trump makes it a campaign issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this material should remain out of the article. It has no relevance to the campaign other than some minor scandal mongering by her opponents. Her speeches to non-government organizations are her personal business, not a matter of public interest.- MrX 13:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No, there was no consensus to redact the information, that's why I started an RFC. User:Fred Bauder seemed to agree with me early on, as I recall. This should be restored. It includes the RFC, which was closed by User:BU Rob13 as "There is consensus that the speeches should be discussed and can be considered a "campaign issue", though not necessarily using that exact term. While the !votes were overwhelmingly in favor of "Yes", the "yes" voters seemed to be voting yes for the inclusion of the content somewhere in the article, not this specific wording or in any one specific location. If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that. ". Besides, there has been extensive media coverage about the fact that she will not release the transcripts, with headlines like The Clinton Tapes: What Is Hillary Hiding In Those Secret Goldman Sachs Transcripts? in the Investor's Business Daily for example. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be censored; it's also not supposed to be a campaign ad for HRC. As I said before, I LOVE HRC, but given the extent of the media coverage about this, and the result of the RFC, it should not be censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Which closure of mine is being invoked? ~ Rob₁₃ 14:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I wikilinked to it above. (I also quoted your closing statement.) The RFC and relevant threads should be restored here because we are not done.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That close was clear that there was consensus to have the info in the article. If someone is reverting you continuously, I'd take it to ANI. ~ Rob₁₃ 15:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Take it to ANI then, because this article has been stable for months without that crap in it. Also, Investor's Business Daily is a poor quality source, notable for saying Professor Hawking would be dead if he lived in the UK. And the speeches are not "secret" if everyone knows about them, for goodness sake. This is just more right wing crap, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I explained this to you several times: please read secrecy. The transcripts meet the definition of secrecy, since she has repeatedly refused to release them. She is hiding them from the American public. I have neither the time nor the energy for an ANI, but User:BU Rob13 suggests your side lost the RFC and since you don't own this article, you should let other editors add referenced information as per consensus. Why are you so afraid of saying she does not want to release the transcripts and she wants them to remain secrets instead? It's the truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, please assume good faith.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at the article itself to determine if it seems to be complying with the consensus of that RfC. In my opinion as the closer of the RfC, the existing text in Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016#Post-2008_election as of the writing of this comment satisfies the community consensus that information about the speeches should be included and should be identified as something that was an issue in the primary. If further additions are desired, another RfC might be appropriate, and one would certainly be required to remove that information given the existing consensus. ~ Rob₁₃ 17:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13: The current text says, "Her paid speeches to Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs in particular, would later draw criticism from campaign opponent Bernie Sanders.". That is incorrect. It was not just Bernie, but most of the media. Moreover, the sentence fails to say that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. Do we need another RFC to include this widely reported fact?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

She has them apparently, because "Clinton also requires a flat fee of $1,000 to pay for an onsite stenographer to record everything she says. However, Clinton is not required to provide the host with a copy, according to the memo.".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I would consider a neutral addition that she was asked to release the transcripts by Sanders and has so far declined to do so to be within the consensus of the RfC, but the media stuff wasn't really touched there. ~ Rob₁₃ 17:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

But it wasn't just Bernie. Journalists would ask her and she would dodge the question each time. That's why there are so many articles about the secrecy of those transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems the issue had sufficient significance to mention it in the article. I would point out too that giving speeches to Wall Street banks has been Clinton's main source of income. TFD (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It's already in the article, which has been stable for months. This is just about Zigzig20s wanted to add a healthy dose of right wing bias to make it sound worse than it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey: Again, please assume good faith, and don't make personal attacks. No, the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the secret transcripts is not currently in the article. Neither are the six-figure amounts. That should not be censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith when you are so blatantly editing with a biased point of view? It's not a "fact" she has repeatedly refused to release the not secret transcripts, because as I said umpteen times the last time you brought this up, the ownership of the speeches lies with Goldman Sachs. The amounts she was paid for these perfectly normal speeches are already public record, and they have been published by a number of news outlets (including the NYT). And it is not "censorship" when we decided to exclude non-salient details that are of no interest to anyone unless they are conducting agenda-driven editing. The only reason you have brought this up again is because you were unhappy with the consensus wording that has been in the article for months, and presumably your interest has been renewed with her confirmation as the Democratic Nominee. This sort of disruption is harmful to the project, so please stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find it. However, it might be there. To bring the matter up to date, the situation has changed over the last few weeks. Clinton has adopted many of Saunder's positions, including close regulation of the financial sector. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, while I might post in a forum that Clinton is only posing when she adopts Saunder's political positions, I don't feel comfortable incorporating that suspicion in a Misplaced Pages article. Until she pulls a double cross there is no evidence. We went through the same thing with Venezuela, it's not a dictatorship until the mass murder starts. Until then they are a democracy that holds regular elections. Assuming hypocrisy, wisely or foolishly, is not based on evidence. Whatever she said in those speeches is superceded by her contemporary position. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The media believe the transcripts are secrets: known by HRC and Goldman Sachs, hidden from the American public. She could release them to end the suspicion. We know she hired a stenographer to transcribe the speeches, so surely she has them? I have not seen a reliable source suggesting they are the property of Goldman Sachs. In any case, the salient fact is that she has repeatedly refused to release them.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No one has said the speeches belong to Goldman Sachs. BTW her Canadian speeches are mostly on Youtube. She was paid USD215,500 for speaking at Canada 2020 which was also posted on their website. TFD (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, User:Scjessey wrote earlier, "the ownership of the speeches lies with Goldman Sachs". How does he know that? The issue with Goldman Sachs (wonderful company which has been besmirched by this whole scandal btw) is that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. It's become an issue because the press has published so many articles about it, suggesting she may be hiding something from voters.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I mean no one quoted in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. She has no excuse.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What is currently in the article is more than sufficient. Phrases like "she has no excuse" make it clear where you are coming from. Please stop disrupting the project to further an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. You are censoring referenced information. I'm sorry but since you post your Twitter account on your userpage, anyone can see you are an HRC superfan in your tweets. One may even wonder if you work for her campaign? In any case, User:The Four Deuces seems to agree with me that we ought to add that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches--that's all widely reported in the public domain--it should appear here too.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Unlike you, I am capable from separating my personal political leanings from my Misplaced Pages editing. And you would do well to remember I don't even have a vote in this election, as a British citizen. Since you are attempting to overturn a longstanding consensus that has given us months of a stable article, you are going to need more than a 24-hour eye-bulging rantfest of anti-Clinton venom to win approval for the absurd changes you are seeking. And will you please stop suggesting Wikipedians you don't agree with are working for the Clinton campaign! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have zero "anti-Clinton venom", none whatsoever. I love HRC, if you will. But, I also love the freedom of the press, and the fact that Misplaced Pages is not censored. Or should not be censored. And we should not censor the widely reported fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the secret transcripts of her six-figure speeches to big banks. The bottom line is, your side lost the RFC, and we didn't update the article after the end of the RFC. This has to be done, or we need another RFC about this--but I am not sure why you are so afraid of the truth. User:Fred Bauder: Do you think we need another RFC to include this content, or can we simply ignore Scjessey?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about "censorship" or whatever (which is a different way of saying "I get to put anything I want into an article", which is just not how an encyclopedia works, especially on BLPs). It's actually about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Start putting up sources or there's no point to this discussion. Until then it stays out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not undue or fringe at all. It partly explains why the American public thinks she is dishonest. The media don't think it is undue. I provided references in the long discussion, which was archived and should be restored to this talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the American public thinks Clinton is dishonest because of 25 years of lies and attacks from Republicans, and the gullible masses believe them. I personally don't like Clinton because (a) she lied out of her ass on the "running from gunfire" story, and (b) her "as far as I know" response to the Obama-is-a-Muslim bullshit was in stark contrast the statesman-like response from John McCain to that whack job lady who called Obama an Arab. But most of what the Republicans throw at her is completely fabricated garbage, and she's one of the most honest politicians running for office. And as a private citizen, there was absolutely nothing wrong with giving speeches to corporations and she was free to make as much money as she liked. There's simply no justification for your continued attempt to shoehorn anti-Clinton stuff into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's just the truth. She has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. That is a fact. Facts, by definition, are unbiased. And widely reported in the press. This should not be censored. I guess we may need another RFC...but there should be no need for it, since it's not questionable in any way, shape or form--it is, quite simply, the truth, nothing but the truth...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's AMA on Quora

Following Donald Trump's AMA on /r/The_Donald subreddit, Clinton will have her own AMA on the website Quora on August 8th. Where should I put this information in the article?

Also, I have sources:

• http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/1/12340322/hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-quora-q-and-a

• http://thenextweb.com/apps/2016/08/01/hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-hosting-ama-quora/#gref

• https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/01/clinton-and-kaine-will-answer-your-questions-on-quora/

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: "dishonest" in lede

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the following statement be included in the lede to this article?

In addition, polling throughout the campaign has indicated that she is perceived as being “dishonest” by a significant proportion of the public.

References

1. See:
   • Cillizza, Chris (February 24, 2016). "1 in 5 Americans say Hillary Clinton is "dishonest" or a "liar." Here's why that's a big problem". Washington Post.
   • Agiesta, Jennifer (June 2, 2015). "Poll: New speed bumps for Clinton". CNN.
   • Edelman, Adam (February 23, 2016). "Voters use words like 'dishonest' and 'liar' to describe Hillary Clinton in poll". NY Daily News.
   • Blanton, Dana (October 14, 2015). "Fox News Poll: 60 percent say Clinton has been dishonest on Benghazi". Fox News.
   • Merica, Dan (June 17, 2015). "Poll: Clinton's honesty and trustworthy problem extends to swing states". CNN.
   • Glass, Nick (February 23, 2016). "Poll: 'Dishonest,' 'socialist' top word lists for Clinton, Sanders". Politico.

CFredkin (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude unless reworked with additions/context. If it is included, it needs to be balanced, otherwise it's classic cherry-picking. Polls show that Clinton has indeed struggled on voter perceptions of honesty and trustworthiness, but she also consistently rates highly on questions related to "strong leadership qualities" and "the right experience to be president" (see, e.g., NPR, Washington Post). To include the "honesty/trustworthiness" struggles in the lead in isolation, without also including the equally important or more important "leadership/experience" metrics, would not be a fair characterization of the totality of polling over the course of the campaign.

Note that the experience perception has been an important figure in polling data...

• Mark Hensch, Poll: Clinton has experience edge over Trump, The Hill (June 3, 2016).
• Nick Gass, Poll: Clinton's biggest asset is Trump's biggest liability, Politico (June 3, 2016).
• Frank Newport & Jim Harter, Presidential Candidates as Leaders: The Public's View, Gallup (April 29, 2016).
• Justin McCarthy, Clinton's Best Asset, Trump's Biggest Liability: Experience, Gallup (June 3, 2016).
• Carrie Dann, Poll: 61% Percent Concerned about Trump's Experience, NBC News (May 23, 2016).

And has been a key theme of Clinton's campaign, as she has emphasized experience:

• Steve Benen, After Brexit, Clinton stresses 'steady, experienced leadership', MSNBC (June 24, 2016).
• Julie Pace & Robert Furlow, Hillary Clinton promises 'steady leadership' at 'moment of reckoning', Associated Press (June 24, 2016).
• Nick Corasaniti, Hillary Clinton Emphasizes Her Time on the World Stage, New York Times (July 9, 2016).
• Evan Halper & Chris Megerian, Sanders turns confrontational and Clinton emphasizes her record in Iowa town hall, Los Angles Times (January 26, 2016).

So no, we shouldn't add the honesty/trustworthiness perception issues to the lead unless we're also going to add content related to the experience/leadership issue. Neutrality 06:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• By itself, definitely not. It might be possible to include it with proper context and other attributes however. But I'd have to see the actual text to have an opinion on that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• By all means, include. Perhaps add some context: dishonest because of the secret transcripts and fake Benghazi video. This can all go in the lede. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include It is a significant aspect of how the public sees her. Her major opponent has even called her "Crooked Hillary" and Republicans chanted "Lock her up!" None of that makes sense unless it is explained that she is perceived as dishonest. TFD (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Not. Misplaced Pages absolutely should not make a call on whether she is or isn't dishonest, and if we're going to include "public perceptions" of the candidates, them we would have to include "bat-shit crazy" in the lede for her opponent. Let's not do either. Ground Zero | t 06:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The RfC question is not whether we should "make a call on whether she is or isn't dishonest" but whether "she is perceived as being “dishonest.”" If Trump is perceived as "bat-shit crazy," then we can consider that in his article. "Neutrality" "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In fairness, Clinton is the most distrusted and least liked person ever to receive the Democratic nomination. TFD (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. This is a matter of undue weight. This should absolutely be discussed in the article, but in the lead? Where exactly would that go? "She declared her candidacy. She faced Sanders in the primaries. She's now in the general against Trump. Oh, wait, yeah, she's also super dishonest." It just doesn't fit at all in a neutral summary of the topic. ~ Rob₁₃ 07:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Do Not Include. Firstly because the comment is not neutral and hard to quantify, and secondly - and more importantly - the campaign is not yet over, so such a judgement (if it is even possible to make one) cannot yet be made. Tonyinman (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Nopey McNopeFace. And frankly, was an RfC necessary? Could this not have been a normal, consensus-building discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes If we're going to say Trump is "racist" in the lede at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, then it seems completely fair to include this reference here. Both comments are equally well sourced and character-based.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment There's a at the corresponding article for Trump on whether to include a reference to his being "racist" in the lede. It's interesting to note the editors who are in favor of one, but at the same time not the other.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

New Logo Color

Ever since Kaine was introduced to the ticket, the campaign seems to be almost exclusively using a new version of the "H" logo with the arrow light blue instead of red. This should probably be updated in the infobox. 64.183.216.107 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment