Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:41, 11 August 2016 editCFredkin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,176 edits →Short circuited← Previous edit Revision as of 20:44, 11 August 2016 edit undoCFredkin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,176 edits →Short circuitedNext edit →
Line 226: Line 226:
::::: No, it's the same standard - how much coverage of something there is in reliable sources.] (]) 20:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) ::::: No, it's the same standard - how much coverage of something there is in reliable sources.] (]) 20:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::: Well, let's see: , , , ,, ,. Is that enough?] (]) 20:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC) :::::: Well, let's see: , , , ,, ,. Is that enough?] (]) 20:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::: And by the way, I was referring to the fact that some editors argue that Hillary's response to Trump's comments absolutely must be included in Trump's Campaign article, but then come here and assert that Trump's response to Hillary's comments is out of bounds.] (]) 20:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


:::It's not Hillary's response to Trump's 2A comment, nor Trump's response to Hillary's remarks, that matter. – ] (]) 22:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC) :::It's not Hillary's response to Trump's 2A comment, nor Trump's response to Hillary's remarks, that matter. – ] (]) 22:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:44, 11 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.
Article policies
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.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
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: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2015/April.
Misplaced Pages
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.
Article policies
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)
Absolutely. The fact that the emails are widely perceived as relevant to Clinton's campaign is sufficient grounds to include them, if only briefly to avoid WP:UNDUE. Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
No. There was no evidence of rigging nor any pertinent mention of Clinton. If it is to be included (which I don't think it should be), it should only be included briefly and saying that the only thing that the DNC e-mails showed is that some DNC officials appeared to favor Clinton. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 7 August 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)
@Zigzig20s: I'm not saying whether it was just Bernie. I'm saying the discussion focused on whether it was a campaign issue, not whether the media widely pressured her to release the speeches. What you're saying may be true, but it wasn't determined by the RfC. ~ Rob13 13:04, 4 August 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)
You're not getting the point. Why the fuck does it matter? Nobody cares. Nobody is talking about it. The election circus has moved on. It turns out that from the historical perspective we write Misplaced Pages articles in, it didn't make the grade. It was a one-week wonder. Nothing to see here. Move along. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's still an issue, since she has not released them. It may be an inconvenient truth, but it's a fact.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey, it does not matter if Clinton is in fact honest, we are merely reporting public perception. Polls consistently show that most voters consider her dishonest and a June 1 poll showed that only 15% of voters consider her more honest than most politicians. And indeed the paid Wall St speeches attracted a lot of attention during the primaries and hence should be mentioned unless you think that we should delete mention of the primaries since they are now over and Sanders has endorsed her. TFD (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If we have stuff in the article talking about the "dishonesty" perception, we must also include the sourced information that shows that is not the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Since this article is about the entire campaign, the information about the primaries should not be deleted. We won't delete this article once the campaign is over. The fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts, thus making certain they remain secrets, should appear in this article, due to the extensive media coverage.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody cares. Please stop beating the dead horse. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
There are many third-party references. I know you don't like it; that's why we had an RFC. It's referenced content; we should add it.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The relevant stuff is already in the article, and the article has remained stable for months. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
No, we had an RFC to add more content about this. The article needs to tell the truth: she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong. The conclusion of the RfC did not support additional content. Read the comments from the contributors and the closer. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
So do you object to this fact to the extent that I need to start another RFC to include it?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
No, we don't need another RfC, for goodness sake. RfCs are for requesting comment when discussion is deadlocked. Why is everyone suddenly abusing the hell out of RfCs? And for the record, nothing you want to include in the article is a "fact" in the way people normally understand the meaning of the word. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's deadlocked by you. Yes, it's a fact that she won't release the transcripts. Yes, I'm afraid we may need an RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It was an unnecessary RfC to begin with that resulted in an inconclusive close because it was premature and badly worded. The last thing we need is yet another concurrent Hillary Clinton RfC just because one editor wants to change the wording. The material is already in the article. It doesn't belong in the lede, and calling the speeches "secret" is POV. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's what the press has called it, and it looks like we need another RFC to add referenced content because of the "deadlocks"/gatekeepers. It is tedious, but the material is NOT in the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The current article text is: "In the meantime, Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations." Do you have any proposed text for expanding or changing that? If you do I'm sure people will give it a listen. I don't think calling them "secret" is likely to fly, but being more descriptive about what actually happened like "including 8(?) speeches to Goldman-Sachs and other financial institutions. She was later criticized during the primary campaign by Sanders, X, and Y for refusing to release transcripts of those speeches." Not exact wording, but something like that would probably gain consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
What's really missing is her refusal to release the transcripts (as I've repeated many times in this thread!). Would you like us to mention every single newspaper and politician who brought this up? We would need to add how many times she refused to release them, as well as the fact that some journalists have suggested she may be hiding something. We can also make a list of all the newspapers that used the word "secret" to describe them. It would be less work for us if she just released the transcripts, but we need to make sure this Misplaced Pages article is not censored, so this is very important content to add as long as she keeps hiding the transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, my rough verbiage mentions the criticism around her refusal to release transcripts. Sources dictate substance, not word choice. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on the word "secret", that doesn't really clarify or add to anything pro or con. As a guess, there may or may not be consensus for adding to the statement "for refusing to release" a statement like "and suggested that she had her she had refused because she did not want to disclose what she had said in those speeches." That's a more factual way of saying the same thing, as opposed to calling them "secret". - Wikidemon (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure. So I guess we need another RFC for this.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Disclosure, I voted for Bernie, so I can't be accused of "right-wing bias", though maybe someone will accuse me of anti-Clintonn bias. The speeches controversy seemed to me one of the major issues in the primary campaign, Sanders made a big issue of it in at least one debate (and IIRC other debates, but the top results on Google appear to mostly be about that one debate). Seems like that clearly belongs in the "Controversies" section. Clinton defended herself in the above-linked debate by saying other candidates had given similar speeches, and she'd release her transcripts when they released theirs. Sanders responded that whatever the Republicans had done, he had no speeches to release. If we can find a source saying Goldman Sachs has copyright over the speech transcripts, we can include that point too (honestly kind of surprised I never heard Clinton make that point—don't know if it's true, but wouldn't surprise me if it were). Chris Hallquist (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
After more Googling, Sanders may have only brought up the issue in the one debate. But Anderson Cooper had previously brought up the speeches during a Democratic town hall. Vox has other coverage (), though my perspective may be getting skewed as an avid Vox reader. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
That's all academic. The issue here is that one editor wants to make a big deal out of the speeches being "secret" (even though everyone knows about them) because the word is provocative, but most editors are satisfied with the existing text, or something with slightly expanded detail. And on a related note, I absolutely detest "controversies" sections in articles. They are examples of very poor writing and invariably act as shit magnets. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
You have a responsibility to assume good faith. The transcripts are secret (as described by third-party sources) because she has repeatedly refused to release them. As I said, we may need an RFC to include this, even though there are countless sources relaying this fact. I have no personal opinion.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Scjessey Fair points. Maybe it should be worked into the section on the primaries? Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:36, 9 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:

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

It probably doesn't belong in any article, but if it did, Clinton's appearance on a social site would likely be a minor part in the Quora article, listing this among the many dozens of other nationally prominent people who have done similar things there, on Reddit, etc. If it were a landmark part of her campaign, it might belong somewhere in the 2016 Clinton campaign article, or perhaps a more specialized article if one exists about her social media strategy and appearances. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 3 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: 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:

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...
And has been a key theme of Clinton's campaign, as she has emphasized experience:
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)
Comment: He's not. Ask Dr Ben Carson. He treats everyone the same. HRC is perceived as dishonest because of a self-fulfilling prophecy re: secret speech transcripts, deleted e-mails, recurring lies, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
In my best Rocket laugh from Guardians of the Galaxy... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! It's like you are in Star Trek's "mirror universe" or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    • That's a misrepresentation of the proposal in the referenced RfC. It doesn't posit that Trump is a racist but rather that others view him as appealing to racism. - MrX 21:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Should we add to the lede that HRC is seen as appealing to Pinocchio lovers?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:45, 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)
  • Exclude – Campaign is not over, and when it is: then we can add such judgement provided such judgement exists. Also, in order to be neutral as Neutrality discussed above, we would need to mention polling on 'leadership qualities' etc which rate her favourably. Notwithstanding this, I'm not willing to add anything into the lede that isn't discussed in length in the body of the article. —MelbourneStar☆ 04:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As currently framed, the statement is absent any context, and not appropriate. The perception of honesty is linked, in the sources I have read, to specific issues: the email controversy, flip-flopping on gay marriage, or the TPP, or something along those lines. If we used the perception of these issues to add context, the statement might be acceptable. Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude – For lead material? Absolutely not. It's out of context, and it's just one piece of data gleaned from the extensive polling that has taken place and will continue to take place. There are lots of other public perceptions. Why single this one out of the lineup?Kerdooskis (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Include in lede and include section in the body of the article on reasons and sources for it. Multiple reliable sources. It is the polling result that is well established, not her underlying character. That needs to be clear in any extended section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No way, not in a million years. Just because the political opposition attacks somebody's character, and gets some traction with that attack, does not justify that we as an encyclopedia do the bidding of the political operatives. Even if it were not a BLP-magnet, a single political attack point is very rarely such a defining issue that it would belong in a politician's lede. Nixon resigning, yes. Dean screaming, maybe. But Hillary Clinton's supposed dishonesty? No way. By the way, since when do we have at least one RfC a week on the presidential election articles. An RfC is supposed to be the near-final stop on a content dispute, not a tool for writing articles, nor a single editor's resort for not gaining fast consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude. Without context and balance (e.g. presidential qualities Clinton does well in), this should not be in the lede. If there's an appropriate body section, it could go there, with context of course, but there doesn't seem to be one.---- Patar knight - /contributions 14:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Include - The only question here should be whether the perception of Clinton as "dishonest" is notable or non-notable. A number of RS's on all sides of the political spectrum have reported on Clinton's perception problem. The sources say it, and so should we. That's regardless of what our own personal opinions of her honesty are. NickCT (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No chance per Kerdooskis, among others. "ignificant proportion" are weasel words and is so vague that I don't even think it appropriate for the lede exception to WP:WEASEL. I'm also inclined to think it's not sufficiently notable for the lede. Whether it could be worked into something suitable for the lede (as it plainly isn't in its present state), I'm not sure, but I wouldn't rule it out. Graham (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • From the NYT's: "...a weak candidate with a muddled message who faces an electorate in which a majority of voters do not trust or like her." User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No Not in its current form and not at all in the lead. This may be appropriate in the general context of polling. This could include, for example, a Pew poll, and an overview of the results they obtained. You are therefore deferring to Pew on the matter of what the important results are, not deciding them yourself. Otherwise it's a clear POV by selective inclusion.
VM was correct in removing this from the lead. Per WP:LEAD, this was not even mentioned in the article...at all, and these grounds alone justify removal. Further, this AfC should probably not have started at all without some prior attempt at consensus building showing the need for broader opinion. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely do not include This is classic WP:SYNTHESIS. First, significant is an vague interpretation given in Misplaced Pages voice. Second, this is a polling based point, which would required (1) current polling aggregation data and (2) reliable sources interpreting current poll aggregation data.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Do not include - The lead should be a summary of the article, and there is no discussion of the perception issues in the article. I recommend a discussion of the public perceptions in the body in an WP:NPOV way and then summarise it in the lead in due course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not, for reasons already given, including problems with WP:SYNTHESIS and not fitting guidelines for a good lede. Including something like this in a "public perceptions" section of the article, in a way that avoids synthesis and respects WP:NPOV by discussing positive aspects of her public image would be acceptable. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Only if reworked Immediately after posting my comment, I thought better of it and decided maybe my initial reaction was too strong. I can see something like this being included in the lede if the proposal is reworked to respect WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:NPOV, and WP:LEDE, but the proposal in its current form doesn't do those things. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. Sadly, yes. The bot sent me. It is well sourced, it doesn't violate BLP, and it is has wide coverage in the reliable media sources. The public does perceive her like this because she's done it on television. There's video evidence of her lying about what the FBI said over her email bits. It's not WP:synth, it doesn't violate WP:NPOV and it meets WP:LEDE. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually, there is no evidence of her lying about what the FBI said over her email. That's just a narrative pushed by the right, and aided by some clever editing of the Comey testimony by Fox News. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely include - Whether she is or isn't is not the question. This election season is plagued with ethical choices and Hillary is certainly fighting the perception of her being dishonest. It is such an influential issue that she has had to address it many times; at one recent point she said one of her answers was a "short-circuited" response. The fact is that Hillary Clinton is battling the reputation of being dishonest and that is a major focal point in this election season. It's not a matter of opinion, it is a fact - again, not that she is a liar, but that she is faced with correcting that perception. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 12:38, 11 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)

See alsos

@Graham11: I've reverted your removal of the Trump campaign see-also I added earlier. Yes, I know about WP:EMBED, but in this case I don't think that guideline applies here as originally intended, as there is no visible link present to the Trump campaign article anywhere on the page. as the navbox contents are hidden by default, and you would need to open the box to even see that it exists. Moreover, even if WP:EMBED did apply, this would be one of the "occasional exceptions" that the guideline states may apply: the Trump campaign article is pretty much the yin to the Clinton campaign's yang: if there is a single link that needs a "see also" her it's that. -- The Anome (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, that's probably fair. I'm usually pretty careful about WP:EMBED being a fairly bright line here, even when a navbox is collapsed, but this seems like a reasonable exception (provided that it's not taken much further in terms of duplicating other links from the navbox). Sorry about that. Graham (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I appreciate it. -- The Anome (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox images

I removed the images from the committee and slogan fields of the infobox. Having been reverted by Spartan7W (with the edit summary "No rationale given for removing campaign materials from infobox. These visually illustrate relevant details as they appear in campaign materials. Also, logo size is on the small side for computer screens, mobile don't care because of auto-changes"), I am bringing the matter to the talk page.

WP:TEXTASIMAGES clearly states, "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image." To do otherwise needlessly hampers accessibility. And given the length of the infobox, and infoboxes' purpose of "summariz… key facts that appear in the article", it seems excessive to have four images in this infobox.

If the intention is to "illustrate relevant details as they appear in campaign materials", the images can also be placed later on in the article. But with the exception of the first image, the images are created by Spartan7W to resemble campaign materials. I think that to include them without that fact being acknowledged either leaves readers believing (a) that they are true reproductions of campaign materials or (b) that for some reason, Misplaced Pages is trying to style its infobox in such a way as to be consistent with campaign branding (rather than consistent with encyclopedic style).

(As an aside, I should note that I believe one of the images to be inappropriately licensed, but I recognize that to be an issue for Commons.) Graham (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The contrast of each of these is within accessibility limits, as the "Stronger Together" is bold text. Either way, alternates are used for accessibility-aiding devices to know what each says. Both "Stronger Together" and "I'm With Her" are actual campaign materials, they are not 100% facsimiles for free-use reasons, but the have the exact same content and appearance; the untrained eye wouldn't know the minor typographical nuances of the "Stronger Together" graphic. And that argument, that they aren't exact copies, doesn't hold water. SVG variants of official seals, like of the State of California for instance, are somewhat simpler than the full seal used on official documents, but because they say the same things and depict the same images, they are an acceptable illustrative tool.   Spartan7W §   22:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Either way, alternates are used for accessibility-aiding devices to know what each says.

That doesn't get around the requirements of MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. The same paragraph from which I quoted earlier notes that alternate text should be used, thus making it more accessible (as there are degrees of accessibility – it's not a black and white thing), but it still requires that "extual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image." I see no reason why this would be an exception.

Both "Stronger Together" and "I'm With Her" are actual campaign materials, they are not 100% facsimiles for free-use reasons, but the have the exact same content and appearance; the untrained eye wouldn't know the minor typographical nuances of the "Stronger Together" graphic.

They are not "campaign materials" unless they are materials used for a campaign, which these are not. You can't suggest that these are merely "typographical nuances" either when one of the images incorporates a photo of the candidate that, to the best of my knowledge, her campaign has never used. (A photo which, by the way, is not in the public domain. I would suggest changing the licensing information on Commons accordingly.) And even if we are dealing with what you describe as "typographical nuances", that still means that they are not materials put out by her campaign. Whether "the untrained eye" would notice is immaterial. One would likely not notice if a photojournalist staged a photograph, but it is well established that that is a clear ethical violation as, by omission, it misrepresents to readers what it is they are viewing.

SVG variants of official seals, like of the State of California for instance, are somewhat simpler than the full seal used on official documents, but because they say the same things and depict the same images, they are an acceptable illustrative tool.

I am not from the United States (nor another country that uses seals in the way Americans use them), so I'm not familiar with the nuances of the matter, but as it's a quasi-heraldic device, I suspect it's being used in that article in the same way that national coats of arms are used in articles relating to other countries. Various depictions of armorial achievements are just that – depictions. What matters in heraldry is the blazon, a formal, technical description of the components of the achievement. It has been fairly long established that any depiction that meets the specifications of the blazon can be used in an article when the depiction generally used by the armiger is not a free image. My guess would be that the same logic is being applied there, but that's certainly not my area of expertise. Graham (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's misleading to use a composite image in which the subject is unsmiling and facing left as a "stand-in" for a campaign image in which she is smiling and facing right. It doesn't belong in the infobox as a substitute. Jonathunder (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Short circuited

Hillary's recent comments regarding her email server received quite a bit of attention in reliable sources. I propose adding the following content to the Email Controversy section here:

In August 2016, Clinton was asked by a journalist about her previous assertion that FBI Director Comey characterized her statements regarding her email server as truthful. In her response, she reiterated that her previous statements on the issue were truthful, but that using a private email server was a "mistake". She also stated: "That's really the bottom line here and I have said, during the interview and in many other occasions over the past months, that what I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly....So I may have short-circuited it and for that, I will, you know, try to clarify." Clinton's comment generated considerable attention on social media and, in response, Donald Trump tweeted: "Anybody whose mind "SHORT CIRCUITS" is not fit to be our president! Look up the word "BRAINWASHED."CFredkin (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Typical back and forth of a campaign. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
(after edit conflict - Muboshgu summarizes it well) I agree that the email controversy section should be made current, but it is already long enough, as it is in summary form. Any discussion of her truthfulness, and after-the fact discussions of that, are secondary issues that are far too detailed and unimportant vis-a-vis the campaign overall. These kinds of details and extended quotes (but not Trump's tweets) belong, if anywhere, in the detailed main article about the controversy. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually according to
If this is to be added, it can be summarized without a lengthy quote to no more than a single sentence. Trump's tweet is of no significance whatsoever.- MrX 22:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess we're applying different standards to Trump's articles than for Hillary's, because that's not what you said there.CFredkin (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's the same standard - how much coverage of something there is in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, let's see: , , , ,, ,. Is that enough?CFredkin (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
And by the way, I was referring to the fact that some editors argue that Hillary's response to Trump's comments absolutely must be included in Trump's Campaign article, but then come here and assert that Trump's response to Hillary's comments is out of bounds.CFredkin (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not Hillary's response to Trump's 2A comment, nor Trump's response to Hillary's remarks, that matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
It makes me wonder if she's actually saying she has these lapses, these short circuits. I wouldn't add in all the bits Trump said, I'd paraphrase what is relevant only. But I do think that her comments about she may have short-circuited and will clarify are relevant here. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

For goodness sake. When she said "short circuited", she meant that she concatenated her comments somewhat on some of the many times the press forced her to repeat herself. For example, sometimes she said "classified emails" when she meant to say "emails marked classified". It doesn't mean some kind of brain lapse. And I think I should remind editors, for the umpteenth time, that what happens at Trump's article has no bearing on what happens here. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Categories: