Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:38, 2 October 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 High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Regarding the unreleased transcripts of her paid Goldman Sachs speeches

The RfC led to consensus for inclusion. Can we please agree on a specific text to add to the article then? One or two sentences may suffice. We don't need to let this drag on forever, but we do need to heed the RfC.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: to which RfC and consensus are you referring to? —MelbourneStar☆ 12:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It was archived several times, but you can see it here. It was closed 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.".Zigzig20s (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe the last discussion ended with, "since you care so much, put together a proposal." TimothyJosephWood 12:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The community cares. The RfC led to consensus for inclusion.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion: "Hillary Clinton has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs, despite being asked to release them many times by Bernie Sanders in the primary. Some media outlets have suggested she may be hiding something; presidential candidate Jill Stein concluded that Clinton was "Goldman Sachs' best friend". (Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs top executives are only allowed to donate to her campaign, not Donald Trump's.)"Zigzig20s (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to take this loaded suggestion seriously. Best you go back to the drawing board, or get someone else to draft a sentence that isn't full of artistic license. —MelbourneStar☆ 13:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Look, it reflects reality. And this is not about me. This is a suggestion. If you or other editors have suggestions, please put them down here. Otherwise there is consensus for inclusion and I may have to be BOLD.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec)My sentiments are directly relevant to a suggestion that just happens to be made by you -- no need to take it personally. Be bold, as you may; you'll be reverted anyway. You may (?) have consensus for mentioning GS -- but you don't have consensus for the above suggestion re GS. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆ 13:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Then feel free to make a better suggestion if you think you have one. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's a start. Now take that and try to word it neutrally, and do so using reliable secondary sources that are not incendiary direct quotes by...lets be honest...a candidate no one really cares about anyway. C'm on Zigs. You're not stupid. You know what parts of that are obviously slanted. TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fine. It just reflects reality. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to suggest it. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs, despite being asked to release them many times by Bernie Sanders in the primary. Some media outlets have suggested she may be hiding something. ; presidential candidate Jill Stein concluded that Clinton was "Goldman Sachs' best friend". (Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs top executives are only allowed to donate to her campaign, not Donald Trump's.)

Again. C'm on. Act like an editor with 100k edits. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"repeatedly" is important. She did not refuse just once. "six-figure" is important. She was paid a lot for those speeches. "many times" is important; Sanders did not only ask her once. Sure, we can cite those media outlets once we've agreed on the text (otherwise it's a waste of time). The Jill Stein bit seems important to me; she's a contestant in the race. And finally, the top executive donation restriction was also reported in the press. Sorry, all of it reflects reality.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not how this works. You do not form your article and then find citations for how you want it to read. You find citations and you write an article based on what they say. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to waste my time looking for citations if the text gets rejected. But actually you could find them in the archives of this talkpage topic. Do you have a better text to suggest?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Right now I'm in this to see if you can be bothered to make a substantial neutral contribution to an election article. If any suggestions you make it not clearly supported by reliable sources, it can be presumed rejected. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I provided a citation for Jill Stein, and you rejected it. You could do this about everything. The editor who closed the RfC suggested starting another RfC about the specific wording. I was hoping to end this quickly with a few lines that reflect the reality of these transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

In the time it's taken us to discuss whether or not you should provide sources, you could have found two dozen. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I could spend hours, even days, looking for thousands of reliable third-party sources, and you could reject them. So if anyone else has other suggestions for a text we could add about this topic, please write it here. We can assess if we've made progress within a week.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I could spend hours, even days, looking for thousands of reliable third-party sources and you could spend months debating endlessly on talk, and refuse to actually get your hands dirty when it comes down to it. TimothyJosephWood 14:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I made a suggestion for a text. Happy to read other suggestions from other editors in the next few days. Not happy to waste my time though. Please respect my time. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no respect for your time when you wish to spend it posting 600+ comments on this talk, and can't be bothered to do any actual work. TimothyJosephWood 14:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Then don't talk to me. Other editors will suggest another text, otherwise there is consensus to add such text as per the RfC. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Trump has once mentioned these Goldman Sachs speeches. Has he? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The text already in the article is more than adequate: "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations." - Wikidemon (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I think an argument could be made that the sentence be expanded. Perhaps: "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations, with speeches to Goldman Sachs drawing particular scrutiny from political opponents." I'm not specifically endorsing the idea, I don't think it is necessary, and it may ultimately be removed again with historical hindsight, but at this point I'm willing to do almost anything to see this crap fall off the talk page and prevent any further archive warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This is close, but I think needs at least a hint of what kind of attention it received. "drawing particular scrutiny from political opponents who insinuated/alleged that (she may be beholden to wall street/that she had promised them something/that she had been (illegally) campaigning for president prior to announcing)". There is probably some neutral way to cover what was being accused there. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Scrutiny is not exactly what it drew, it drew a mention by campaign opponents. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

How about: "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations, with speeches to Goldman Sachs highlighted by political opponents in particular." I disagree completely with the suggestions made by ResultingConstant though.-- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with both, because neither a rooted in any description made by a reliable source. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Let's leave it as it is then. It can't be said that I didn't make an effort to accommodate this. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with including the content, but it doesn't make any sense to parse wording unless you have something to base that wording on. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's just best to add after "various organizations" a brief list of them, "such as Goldman Sachs," etc., without adding any commentary. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: 'Deplorables' comment

Prior discussion

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton referred to half of Donald Trump's supporters as "deplorables". Afterwards, after being faced criticism by Republicans and other groups, Clinton responded by saying that she was "grossly generalistic". Her speech and her criticism is covered by many reliable sources including New York Times, NPR, and Time Magazine. Also, her political opponent Trump responded to her speech by retweeting a quote that Obama has said back in the 2012 election, as covered by newspaper The Hill. Should I add this infromation in this article? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think so. Many commentators have compared it to Romney's 47% comment. It also came a day or two (?) after her husband's attack on "coal people".Zigzig20s (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, we need to wait until we see how this pans out. Relax, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, wait, let's see if it has legs. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. We need to wait and see what impact, if any, this has. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop trying to cram every fringe right talking point into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This incident has considerable potential, Clinton's contempt for a substantial portion of the population, and the laughter her remarks elicited from an upscale New York audience, strike home, but, regardless of how it resonates with me, or not, with any of us, is not our editing issue. Her campaign immediately recognized the nature of the gaff, and the candidate is trying to cure. Good chance we are going to see this in Trump ads, over and over. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's slow down and smell the roses for awhile, folks Steve Quinn (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

An ongoing campaign is by definition a news story. And any part of the campaign that manages to attract a lot of attention should be included. Hillary Clinton just referred to 20% of the electorate as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it." Trump and Pence replied, Clinton has backtracked, sort of. TFD (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton just correctly referred to 20% of the electorate as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it." - There, I've fixed it for you. Clinton "gaffed" by speaking the truth about Trump's supporters. But WP:RECENT still applies here. Let's see where it is at after a few days to gestate in the media. It's not like she referred to a whole nation as murderers and rapists, or called for a ban on an entire religious group, or anything absurdly egregious and disqualifying as that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, what's up with this? Only a "half"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As George Stephanopoulos on This Week on ABC asked this morning, "Will anyone care about this a month from now?" User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Are there reliable third-party sources telling us that she insulted 20% of the US electorate "correctly", or is this just an opinion?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that a tiny fraction of Trump's support is from alt-right or neonazi sources such as David Duke. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you able to find a reliable third-party source saying she believes the US electorate comprises 20% white supremacists? That would make international headlines for sure.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Large majorities of Trump supporters have negative views of Islam, of American Muslims, and of immigrants in general. Somewhere between 40% and 50% of Trump supporters believe that African-Americans are more inherently "lazy", "violent", and "criminal" than whites. These are reliably sourced facts (see Pew, Reuters, and Reuters again). So insofar as such facts matter, it was reasonably correct to estimate that "half" of Trump's supporters fall into a basket of racists, Islamophobes, and xenophobes (with an unquantified but clearly non-zero number of sexists, given the prevalence of Trump-associated campaign schwag referred to Clinton as a "bitch"). But you weren't really interested in those sorts of facts, I'm guessing. MastCell  22:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates, writing in The Atlantic agrees, "She Wasn't Wrong About Trump's Supporters: Clinton said half of Donald Trump’s supporters were prejudiced. If anything, her numbers are too low." and maintains that her statement is true. However, he goes on to say "all truths are not equal. And some truths simply break the whole system.", reasoning that the media is avoiding a substantive discussion of racism, by defining Clinton's assertion as a "gaff." See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIQWwonFYHE User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

See George Stephanopoulos#Clinton Administration: "Stephanopoulos was, along with David Wilhelm and James Carville, a leading member of Clinton's 1992 U.S. presidential campaign.".Zigzig20s (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2016 (UTI)

Also said on This Week, by panel members: "Every candidate should have a postit note on their mirror in the dressing room saying 'I am a candidate, not a political analyst." and "It is OK to attack your opponent; it's not OK to attack the electorate" (not exact quotes) User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Its certainly notable "To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the 'basket of deplorables'," Clinton said. "Unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. Some of those people were irredeemable, she said, but they did not represent America. SaintAviator lets talk 23:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

David Duke. Also, please stop stalking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Pee-wee Herman. VM I didnt see you here, but came here after seeing below SaintAviator lets talk 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

20% of the voting public do not represent America? And remember that Sanders supporters, none of whom support Trump, according to Clinton, are also racist and misogynist. So we are up to 40% plus. Not to mention Obama supporters in 2008, who now all support Clinton, were also sexist. Doing the math, she has more sexist supporters than Trump. TFD (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha! Did you type that with a straight face? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Half" may be an underestimate .Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There's an entire section in Trump's Campaign article devoted to his comment on Hillary and the 2nd Amendment which was interpreted by his critics as a call for 2nd Amendment supporters to assassinate Hillary. Given that, this statement by Hillary seems at least as notable and worthy of mention here.CFredkin (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm amazed I have to say this yet again, but what happens in the Trump article has no bearing on what happens here. Besides, calling morons a bunch of morons is nowhere near as outrageous as suggesting 2nd Amendment supporters assassinate someone. That's false equivalence. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Imagine if Trump called 50% of Hillary Clinton's supporters morons. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That would be taken as just another Trump comment. Like when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any supporters. Your strawman argument still has no bearing though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump's comment required "interpretation" by his critics to derive the assassination "suggestion", while Hillary's comment attacking a large segment of the voting population requires no interpretation at all. As noted above, her comment is directly equivalent to Romney's 47% comment and there's also a very large section in Mitt Romney's Campaign article on that. Hillary's comment was widely reported by very reliable sources and is highly relevant to her campaign. You guys have jumped the shark by opposing any mention of it here. You are in effect advocating for a double standard for Campaign articles of Dems vs. Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFredkin (talk • contribs) 16:52, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

No one, so far, has opposed any mention of it. The question is how important it will be with respect to her campaign. It seems important and was included in every Sunday morning new talk show and is the subject of wide comment. So it will probably be included. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Interpretation"? Direct quote: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." What's to interpret? That's what he said. Does his campaign article mention that? Without looking, I doubt it.

I am inclined to agree, by the way, that her "basket of deplorables" comment is relevant, but in the context of her "alt-right" speech, since it's the same subject. I see the alt-right speech is not included in this article either. Why is that? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the Trump comment I'm referring to.CFredkin (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that one. Trump is too smart to say "we should assassinate Hillary Clinton". So he implied it with a dog whistle. You don't have to be a genius to get his meaning. Everybody did. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Should the following statement be added to the "Controversies" section of this article:

At a fundraiser on September 9, 2016, Clinton stated "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it." Clinton's comment was criticized by her opponents, and the following day she stated that she regretted saying 'half', and added "It’s deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people."CFredkin (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

References

1. "Hillary Clinton's 'Basket Of Deplorables,' In Full Context Of This Ugly Campaign". NPR. September 10, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
2. "Hillary Clinton Says She Regrets Part of Her 'Deplorables' Comment". Time. September 10, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
3. "Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers 'Deplorables,' and GOP Pounces". New York Times. September 10, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
4. "Conservatives, progressives battle over 'deplorables,' leaving quote itself behind". Washington Post. September 10, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2016.

Comments

• Oppose as written. A mention of the "deplorables" could be worth adding if added with the context of her "alt-right" speech, which gives good context on who the "deplorables" are. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include Hillary's comment was widely reported by very reliable sources and is highly relevant to her campaign. It's been compared by a number of sources to Romney's "47%" comment, which received prominent mention in his Campaign 2012 article.CFredkin (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and please withdraw / suspend yet another pointless RfC. As things now stand it would be a weight violation, as well as POV depending on the wording. Whether this issue will eventually belong in the article, and how, is simply not knowable at this point because it is too recent and events if any have not yet unfolded. The proliferation in American political articles of rapid-fire and often overlapping RfCs on minor issues that are derogatory to the candidates, of that fail to gain immediate consensus, is disruptive and not conducive to collaborative editing or to article creation. We are now about 7 weeks before the election and each of these RfCs theoretically runs for 4 weeks. When started the issue at hand is fairly fresh in the news and lots of people who aren't familiar with the article, or editing political articles in general, rush in to say it's notable because it is in the news. Days later the story dies down, and we're left with an RfC that is neither well thought through or represents any lasting consensus of the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I do agree this was yet another rush to RfC. We've only had a weekend to process the "deplorables" comment, it's only still going through its first cycle in the media, so we don't 100% know how to portray it yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include. The breadth of reliable third-party sources covering this remark, the fact that Trump's campaign has responded, and its comparison to Mitt Romney's 47% comment all mean that this has become a campaign issue. Thus, it should be included. The RfC is unfortunate but necessary to make sure the article reflects content from reliable third-party sources and that we all remember this should not be a campaign ad.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not necessary, and quite WP:POINTY in fact, since discussion to reach a consensus for inclusion is still ongoing above. Have patience. We're not Breitbart. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither are The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Guardian, etc. Please let this RfC run its course. Anyway, I am reading a book--I don't have time to reply.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, there are NYT/WP/CNN stories on just about everything a candidate does during the presidential election. That doesn't mean every detail deserves inclusion in the article. I say wait and see if there is a lasting impact. Brianga (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include It has received significant coverage and has been compared to Obama's "cling to their guns and bibles" (2008) and Romney's 47% (2012) comments. And of course we should include Clinton's defense, that it was an over-generalization that she regrets. TFD (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include in some form User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include the comments made news, and it was not some fringe news, so much so that Hillary had to apologize for the comments. 🔯 Sir Joseph 19:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include in some form, impact of remark continues to grow and media coverage, response, and analysis is, in fact, so massive that this topic could probably support an independent article. I strongly urge that we close this discussion and add material to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

comment I was asked to come here and to delete a brief statement on this which I had added to the article ("On September 9, in a speech at a New York campaign fundraising event, Clinton described "half" of Trump's supporters as "deplorable," saying, "you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that... Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable. But thankfully they are not America." According to New York Magazine, this was the 3rd time that Clinton had referred to Trump supporters as "deplorable," but the first time that the Trump campaign made "a big deal," out of the description.") If deleting it is the correct procedure, I will do so. However, I added it to the article because after 3 days of intense coverage (now including commentators responding to the responses to her remark, and a debate about whether to count Clinton's apology as an apology or merely to describe it as a "regret," and much more ) and I frankly deem it better for the project to include a simple statement of what she said, even while we discuss what more to add. the sourcing is just so massive, and imho we damage only our own reputation by the appearance of not covering major campaign developments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Question -- what to do about the fact that someone has gone ahead and added it even though there's an RfC in progress? Seems like wasting people's time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We remove it. Rather than simply come to a consensus on our own, this RfC abuse means we have to wait for the whole process to conclude. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not make stuff up tell lies about me, User:Moboshgu; it is rude and slanderous. "clearly" the sequence of events was hat I went to the page after listening to the new cycle and and added content that to me seemed both neutral and patently notable. Then someone came to my talk page to inform me that this is an ongoing RFC. Then I came here and asked an honest question about whether the material I had added should be removed while this RFC is ongoing. Note that there was no edit war. no reversion (except yours). I beleive that you owe men an apology. I would still like a clarification on whether we have a policy on whether the moot material stays on the page or is removed during an RFC. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline directly the broad point of editing an article during an RfC or consensus discussion. Perhaps there is and I missed it. However, as a matter of good editing practice I would think that in the spirit of collaboration and BRD, people should not upset the status quo version of an article while an RfC or consensus discussion is in progress on that very topic. E. M. Gregory makes a good point: that the content is so obviously necessary that it would be a disservice to readers and look bad for the encyclopedia to omit it during the RfC process. I don't agree with that point, as it turns the burden on its head of establishing consensus for making changes. Also, the discretionary sanctions (described at the top of this page) include the caution: Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. The content has been challenged here on the talk page. It shouldn't be necessary to go through a game of adding and then reverting it in order for editors to exercise caution. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include - This speech was analyzed and critiqued by many third-party sources. The speech is still controversial because Clinton only apologies for her exaggerated percentage; she still refers to many of Trump's supporters as deplorables. Type in "Hillary Deplorables" onto Google News. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note 1 - The speech is still reported by many news articles (via Google News). For example, here is a recent analysis by Vox regarding her comment. Also, the word "Deplorable" has increased greatly on Google Trends. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note 2 - In a report by USA Today, several Trump supporters embrace the "Deplorable" label. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note 3 - Trump just addressed his crowd in Miami with this opening line: "Welcome to all of you deplorables". Report from the Guardian and Report from Business Insider. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note 4 - New York Times has posted this opinion article on September 22, 2016. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of this material and Support suspending this RFC for at least two weeks. I oppose inclusion because I can see that this is way too soon to know if these news reports have any impact at all on the course of Hilary's presidential campaign WP:NOTNEWS. Also, if reports of her remarks turn out to have no bearing on the direction of the campaign, then the error of including this material would probably amount to a BLP violation, per NPOV. Also, thank you for removing this material from the article per WP:TOOSOON and per NPOV. I support suspending this RFC per User:Wikidemon - it is premature. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Another RfC? - From WP:RFC: "If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." The debate over this issue is just a few hours old, with no evidence of the need for any form of dispute resolution at this early stage. Many regular editors have not even had a chance to comment in the discussion. This is another abuse of the RfC process, which always seem to come from editors eager to put negative stuff in Clinton articles, by the way. The RfC should be withdrawn, the OP should be trouted, and the discussion that had really only just begun should be allowed to run its course in the usual way. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Who are the "regular editors" that you referred to above? The suggestions that conducting a RfC is disruptive (when there are no other RfC's in progress for the article) and that it's somehow a bad thing to solicit input from the broader community are absurd. IMO editors making such assertions are the one's who should be trouted. And for the record, this RfC at the Talk page for Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 was started with absolutely no prior Talk discussion on the issue.CFredkin (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

CFedkin, although this is an "Otherstuff" argument, it appears there was discussion, as pointed out by the second Ivoter jn that particular RFC - one link is this one ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The proliferation of RfCs is surely disruptive. The process is intended to solicit wider input on significant questions well down the process of consensus-building, if the article editors need some additional perspective, not a knee-jerk process gaming by an editor who can't shoehorn in their favored content three days into a news cycle. If the Trump articles have the same RFC abuse as the Clinton articles, that's not really our problem here but that would be a disruption issue to address there as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This. This is another instance of CFredkin trying to abuse one process or another to WP:GAME Misplaced Pages policy. Spamming RfCs to have content determined by vote rather than discussion and consensus is indeed disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose to the version posted on the RfC. I think only 2nd comment by Clinton could be included somewhere, but only in appropriate context and not as a separate subsection. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include in some form, strongly. It is clearly relevant and past precedent is clearly in favor of it. I see absolutely no reason not to. Even in the form above is fine - it is, after all, a wiki, and if people object to the specific wording, then they can edit it, so long as the basic essence remains. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note Piers Morgan:"This could be the weekend that cost Hillary Clinton the presidency ]. The repercussion are continuing to explode, commentators are talking about Clinton throwing away her credibility last Friday. Let's not trash our credibility by deleting this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Good thing Piers Morgan's opinion isn't worth the spittle coming from his mouth. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Who gives a shit what Piers Morgan says? I mean, Ed Anger is a more reliable and noteworthy source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Postpone decision for one or two weeks to see if the thing has legs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose adding the above paragraph, but the information should be included somewhere. The biggest problem with this paragraph is that it doesn't mention the other "half" of the Trump supporters that Clinton described. I believed she said the other half felt economically anxious and politically let down, looking for any kind of change. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but the whole description should be included, not just the "deplorables" bit, per WP:WEIGHT. _Gravity 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include. Stongly. SaintAviator lets talk 22:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include - This has been covered by multiple high-quality sources and is directly relevant to the campaign. Although the MSM may stop covering it in few days, it has already reached the level of significance to justify inclusion, much like Binders full of Women and similar public comments that politicians wish they hadn't made.- MrX 23:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:NOTNEWS and most certainly not without the other part of the quote. Come on, the important half of the quote is being cut off in a pretty transparent attempt to push POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude We can point to Romney's "binders full of women" and 47% comment as campaign-ending gaffes only because he lost the election, arguably due to those statements. We can't say that about Clinton's "basket of deplorables" at this time. Even the sources we have are just speculating about its impact. clpo13_(talk) 23:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Romney's Binders full of women article was created on October 2012, one month before Romeny lost the election. Although the article was considered for deletion around the same time, the result was "No Consensus". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note that the Aleppo gaffe is discussed on Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016; where it was removed, but re-added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And that Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 has a section containing about a dozen such gaffes. We either need to delete major, new-cycle leading gaffes from the Gary Johnson and Donald Trump pages, or keep this one here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

For example, there is a controversy on the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 called Veterans for a Strong America event. There are not any recent sources for that news story and there are only 234 reports listed on Google News. Meanwhile, Hillary's Deplorable statement has half a million articles listed on Google News. There are even less stories on Khizr Khan alone (with almost 100,000 articles on Google News and about ten thousand articles about "Gold Star Family") and that gaffe was all over the news for a while. Finally, Trump's biggest gaffe (The second amendment speech) has about 182,000 articles on Google News. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude but only for the time being. The comment could very well be a turning point for the election, and if it rises to the prominence of Mitt Romeny's "47%" comment, I would consider it a slam-dunk. I think the article, and the general cause of knowledge, can suffer the delay. After all, an encyclopedia isn't news. Heterodidact (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment From my experience watching this (and I've been watching it all), we have a lot of editors who want to argue a lot and not do crap to improve the project, we have a few experienced editors who have forgotten what it's like to AGF, we have a lot of editors who don't show up until there is an RfC, and none of it matters, because when they all disappear no one who is left can pull their shit together long enough to even implement the consensus of the last RfC. So the default outcome of this RfC is not include, because even when previous RfCs have had consensus for inclusion, everyone is so involved in arguing and attacking one another that nothing gets done anyway. TimothyJosephWood 01:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Snow Include per MrX. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note For the sake of completeness here is the full quote. As can be easily seen, quoting just the cherry picked part is obviously POV. Just because that's the way breitbart does it, doesn't mean we stoop to their level:

You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of these folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket–and I know this because I see friends from all over America here–I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas–as well as, you know, New York and California–but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously, the final phrase of citation "Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well" is important. In essence, this RfC asks a question: "Should be included?". I am sure that using selective quotation out of context goes against our core policies ("five pillars"). Whatever consensus here might be, it should be void and overwritten by our core policies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, the proposal is a blatant attempt to push POV by manipulating the quote and context and many of these "include" votes aren't much better. Maybe half of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include – Eminently notable statement, widely described as a defining moment of the campaign, both by supporters and opponents of Clinton. — JFG 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include This was an important statement and there was a lot of media coverage of it. Metron (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Move to close this discussion and include a brief description of incident. My reasoning is that it is an abuse of the RFC process to use it to keep patently notable material and RS material out of an article, we risk WP:UNDUE and giving our readers the impression of political bias not only by acts of POV inclusion, by also by acts of POV omission.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't "move" to close discussions, we let RfCs run their course.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with closing this RfC because it should never have happened, and I also agree the matter needs to be included, but absolutely not in the way written by the OP. We can continue this discussion outside this RfC in the usual way, until consensus wording emerges. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include – it is note worthy and akin to Mitt Romeny's "47%" comment; there is enough independent coverage by RS sources, as well. Kierzek (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include - A widely-reported and obviously significant incident, since it has led to media speculation it could potentially cost Clinton the election. No valid reason for not mentioning it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include. It's funny. (And also, it's widely reported, well-sourced, and probably will get some lasting impact.) epicgenius (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include, major political gaffe with heavy coverage and substantial implications for the future course of the campaign. The phrase has become a rallying cry for Trump fans (), and Clinton's walking-back of the remark attests to the controversy's notability. It was deemed significant enough to use in an ad: . It's even spawned sub-controversies, such as Pence's refusal to call David Duke "deplorable": . It doesn't need its own paragraph, but a few sentences will do for now. If it becomes more significant as things develop, I imagine we can expand it as needed. However, I do think the second quote should be trimmed, as it doesn't seem to add anything. GAB 02:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sure, this controversy should be included, but not in the way suggested on this RfC. Yes, the phrase was taken out of context by campaigners to conduct their propaganda, but it does not mean we should continue their propaganda in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include this version. Per conversation below, consensus seems to be for this wording in particular. Agree with GAB that the second quote needs trimmed to about half, or replaced with prose to the same effect, but for the time being I support inclusion of this wording as a starting place, which can be subsequently tweaked as needed. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:NOTNEWS -- I doubt it would damage Clinton to have this included here, but I think it would damage Misplaced Pages to act as such a transparent vehicle for the campaigning interests of those who think she spoke out of turn. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Exlude per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE), WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Everything any such politician says is "controversial" to someone. Whether this is a lasting, noteworthy controversy that will affect the campaign waits to be seen (and is highly dubious). This article is not meant to be a catalog of every potentially "controversial" statement ever made by Clinton.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  06:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: There are many controversial actions made by Donald Trump that remain on his controversies section that are smaller than this particular controversy. For example, the Veterans for a Strong America event is not widely reported by the media, with only 295 articles on Google News. Also, there is a section dedicated towards Trump's misstatements, and yet Clinton does not, even though she has said many controversial comments like the Deplorables comment, her emails (Clinton has claimed that she "did not send or receive any material marked classified", despite receiving emails that were later found to be classified at a confidental level), and her comment against coal miners, in which she called the comment a "misstatement". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, what goes on in the Trump article has no bearing on what goes on here. Why is this so hard for editors to understand? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; Yoshiman6464 is just making a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument-to-avoid. The Donald Trump article has its own problems, and the editorial pool at it has their own hands full working them out. The responsibility of editors at this page is making this article as best as we can, on its own merits, not as part of, or a tool of, the off-WP political struggles going on. Given the debate I saw on TV a few hours ago, I have little doubt that the pressure to include more "controversies" in the Trump article will mount, but that has nothing to do with undue weight and encyclopedic relevance issues at this article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  09:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Include. There are reliable sources who analyze the comment in terms of what it means to her support in polls: , . There are also sources that analyze it in terms of the atmosphere of the election: . And, there are sources who report that it's being fact-checked: . That's a lot of analysis. Find a way to neutrally summarize the analysis and include it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Include, for obvious reasons; this is clearly one of the most important events of the 2016 campaign and should have its own section, as I'm sure it will in the medium term once the historical analysis of the campaign starts to appear. As for the wording, it needs serious copy editing. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Building a consensus formulation

As this RfC is leaning towards inclusion, I'd like to work here with fellow editors towards a consensus formulation of the event. Starting with the nominator's proposal and a few helpful suggestions mentioned along the way, adding citations about recent developments. Comments welcome. — JFG 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

On August 25th, 2016, Clinton gave a speech criticizing Trump's campaign for using "racist lies" and allowing the alt-right to gain prominence. At a fundraiser on September 9, Clinton stated "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it." Clinton's remark was criticized as potentially insulting to millions of Americans, and the following day she expressed regret for saying "half", while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified "hateful views and voices". The "Deplorables" moniker quickly became a rallying cry for Trump supporters, with the Trump campaign inviting "deplorable Americans" on stage and pointing the label back at Clinton in an advertisement. This attack was deemed unfair by a large share of Clinton's supporters (45%) as well as Trump's (90%), many commentators comparing the gaffe to Mitt Romney's 47% comment in 2012.

References

1. Flegenheimer, Matt (August 25, 2016). "Hillary Clinton Says 'Radical Fringe' Is Taking Over G.O.P. Under Donald Trump". New York Times.
2. ^ Montanaro, Domenico (September 10, 2016). "Hillary Clinton's 'Basket Of Deplorables,' In Full Context Of This Ugly Campaign". NPR.
3. ^ Epstein, Jennifer (September 10, 2016). "Clinton Calls Some Trump Supporters 'Basket of Deplorables'". Bloomberg News.
4. ^ Chozick, Amy (September 10, 2016). "Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers 'Deplorables,' and GOP Pounces". New York Times.
5. Reilly, Katie (September 10, 2016). "Hillary Clinton Says She Regrets Part of Her 'Deplorables' Comment". Time.
6. Cummings, William (September 12, 2016). "'Deplorable' and proud: Some Trump supporters embrace the label". USA Today.
7. Hagen, Lisa (September 10, 2016). "Supporters join Trump on stage: We are not deplorable". The Hill.
8. Trudo, Hanna; Shepard, Steven (September 12, 2016). "Trump releases new ad hitting Clinton for 'deplorables' remark". Politico.
9. ^ Blake, Aaron (September 26, 2016). "Voters strongly reject Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' approach". The Washington Post.

Please add your support, opposition, comments and suggestions below; I will amend the text above until we reach an acceptable consensus formulation. — JFG 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've said this before, but here's a good place to say this again. Her "deplorables" comment cannot be fully understood without considering the "alt-right" speech she gave about two weeks prior. I would like to see a sentence mentioning the alt-right speech placed before the deplorables remark, if this is indeed to be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Counter proposal? TimothyJosephWood 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this is a rough sketch. Also I don't think the snap "voter feedback" stuff is so useful, as really any uproar has long since died out. Also the "was criticized" has a strawman feel to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I incorporated your suggestion about the alt-right speech in the proposal above, so we can keep the conversation clear. No need for a "criticized by whom" as this is in two quoted sources (criticism came from Trump's campaign, pollsters and journalists). Regarding the negative voter feedback, this was culled from a September 26 article reporting on public opinion about this very question, two weeks after the controversy erupted, so that's not part of an initial knee-jerk reaction which would have died out; keeping the phrase. — JFG 05:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I would replace "moment" with "comments" or "statement". "Moment" in this case, is a completely meaningless vanilla filler noun. Other than that is seems fine. TimothyJosephWood 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done — JFG 04:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a problem with the final sentence. First, the referenced poll did not specifically ask respondents about the "basket of deplorables" comment, but rather it asked about a generic generalization that is loosely related. Second, the sentence seems to suggest Democrats were "negative" toward the comment, when in fact less than half (47%) of Democrats were negative toward the generic question asked in the poll and 49% thought it was fair. Third, it seems to mash up the response of the polled registered voters with the opinions of commentators, which is problematic for both the mash up and the fact that we shouldn't be using opinion pieces. Fixing the sentence would be difficult, because you would necessarily have to go into the weeds of why the poll is only related to the comment. It would be better to simply say "a poll indicated a majority of respondents thought it was unfair to describe a large portion of Trump's supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities" and ditch the opinion pieces comparing the comment to the Romney gaffe. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/09/25/National-Politics/Polling/question_17429.xml

@Scjessey: I see your point, however this article makes it clear that Clinton's comment resonated negatively not only with Trump supporters (90%) but also with a large segment of Clinton's base (45%), which is unusual in this strongly polarized election and the salient fact emphasized by the article. It's not an isolated comment, as several sources support this assertion (but we don't need to bludgeon the paragraph with more). To address your concerns, I rephrased the text to "This attack was deemed unfair" and I added the raw numbers so readers can judge for themselves how strongly this statement has been rejected. Concerning the comparison to Romney's statement, most of the sources drew this parallel (I referenced four from sources already used in this paragraph, without even looking deeper to find more), so inclusion is WP:DUE. — JFG 04:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Include though I may quibble with the wording: the comment generated substantial international interest in addition to huge domestic coverage, and it would be an NPOV violation to leave the matter out. Of course, I do wish that those folks who simply have an axe to grind against Hillary would stick to matters of substance, like her flip-flopping on the TPP, but I suppose we cannot blame Misplaced Pages for the failings of the mainstream press in the United States. Vanamonde (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Thanks all for your feedback. I believe we have reached a fair formulation, so I have now added the text to the article. Of course it can still be amended by the regular editing process. — JFG 05:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've reverted your archiving of this discussion, which was closed prematurely. I have also made changes to the text you put into the article, because (as I stated earlier) the text indicating polling of Democrats misrepresents their views. "Large share of Clinton's supporters" gives the impression of a plurality, which is wrong (even with the percentage you added). The question asked in the poll did not even mention "deplorables", so it cannot be directly tied to the comment. I've also removed the weasel word from the following text about the 47% gaffe, and separated it out. Please don't archive this discussion until the text is actually agreed upon. You will note I graciously didn't just revert your entire text, which I certainly could've reasonably done. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine, and thanks for preserving most of the text; my only goal is to get something acceptable done so we can all move on. Do you have a suggested wording for the phrase you disagree with? — JFG 20:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

My contention is that the phrase should be omitted entirely, which is what I have already done to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I think it's significant because it addresses one concern that was expressed in the RFC discussion, namely that of recentism. But I won't push it unless we get consensus support. Fellow editors, any other opinions? Should we have a phrase reporting on voter feedback a few weeks after the incident? — JFG 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, my main problem with the proposed inclusion (aside that it was really just news for a couple days and now it's more or less outdated) is that it omits the second part of the quote. To paraphrase, what she said was that half the Trump supporters are deplorable racists etc., but the other half are people who have a legitimate grievance and who's economic situation has been ignored. The "but the other half" part is important to understanding the meaning of the quote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Do you have a suggestion how to include this second half in a concise manner? Perhaps add "She further mentioned that the other half had legitimate grievances to address." after her direct quote? — JFG 11:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Specific wording

Campaign book, Stronger Together

I should note that HRC mentioned the book during the first debate last night, making this even more WP:DUE.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Called it. TimothyJosephWood 12:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Light blue logo variant

The campaign has begun primarily using a new variation of the "H" logo with the arrow light blue instead of red. If someone could update the article to reflect this change, it'd be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.179.5 (talk • contribs)

I agree; however, I have been unable to find a source for the updated logo. I was surprised to discover the campaign website does not appear to have a readily accessible press area where such materials are made available. Perhaps I am not looking in the right place. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Daily newspaper editorial board endorsements

• The NYT - "The Times editorial board has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president..." (primary source).
• Cincinnati Enquirer (primary source). Washington post coverage of Cincinnati endorsement: "Another conservative newspaper editorial board just endorsed Hillary Clinton" . Cincinatti Patch coverage of this endorsement , CNN coverage , Politico coverage . Also mentions Dallas Morning News (see below).
• LA Times endorsement (primary source). Coverage of this endorsement by Politico . Coverage of this endorsement by UPI
• Dallis Morning News (primary source). The Washington Post coverage of this endorsement stating: "For the first time since 1940, the "Dallas Morning News" has endorsed a Democrat for president, telling readers in one of the nation's most reliably red states Wednesday that they ought to vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump."

It could be these matter because it is the general election cycle between only two candidates, and one is lacking in endorsements at this point. The Washington Post stated,

"For Trump, losing out on the Cincinnati Enquirer's endorsement deprives him the backing of the third-largest newspaper in a crucial swing state. And it continues a pattern of rejection by media outlets and politicians who should theoretically be behind the GOP standard-bearer." Also, the WP said, "The Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed Hillary Clinton on Friday afternoon, joining the Dallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle among the ranks of newspapers with conservative editorial boards that have spurned Donald Trump and backed his Democratic rival instead."

There might be more coverage of the NYT endorsement later since this is essentially "breaking news". Any thoughts? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to be the first with a proposal to be placed somewhere within this article:

• Clinton has been endorsed by the New York Times, LA Times, Cincinnati Enquirer, and the Dallas Morning News editorial boards. The Dallas Morning News has not endorsed a Democrat for president since 1940. The Cincinnati Enquirer has not endorsed a Democrat for almost 100 years.

I think this is notable, particularly for papers and orgs that have traditionally endorsed Republican candidates (I believe Cincinnati Enquirer is another one).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm following up on the Enquirer and will post shortly with the primary and third party sources. I agree this is notable. In fact, I think this is remarkable. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

oopa! I already posted it. Well, I have some other sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Something like that would be appropriate. We could also add that the Union Leader, which often endorses the Republican, chose not to endorse Trump. Or, maybe that only belongs on the Trump campaign article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is more about daily newspapers specifically endorsing Clinton. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears that consensus is developing to place this in the article - so I did so, in the section entitled "Endorsements" - with the following revision history comment "add content - per talk discussion "Daily newspaper editorial board endorsements" - appears to have consensus". Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

New Clinton Controversy

Yesterday, leaked audio-tapes revealed that Clinton saw Herself Occupying “Center-Left to Center-Right” and that she referred to Bernie Sanders supporters as "basement dwellers" "living in their parents' basement", as reported by The Inercept, The Week, Politico, and CBS News, and Business Insider. So far, the Hashtag #BasementDwellers is number one hashtag on Twitter. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Not controversial at all, because she's absolutely correct. People on the extreme left and extreme right are whack jobs. And by "leaked", you mean "hacked", and she never used the term "basement dwellers" at any time (only right-wing The Week uses it in their opinion piece), and use of the word "revealed" indicates a POV being pushed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

How is this not a leak? Nobody has heard these statements before except for her donors. Hacking was the method used in leaking the audio files. Also, I have corrected the term from "basement dwellers" to "living in their parents' basement", as this term was used by those who have opposed Clinton's comments. Thank you very much for pointing that out Scjessey. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "controversy" at all. I really don't understand why you have even brought this up. It's certainly not notable in any conceivable way. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I get that it's silly season with HRC, but we really need to make sure we don't lose sight of what it takes to become a "Clinton controversy". Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster? That hits all the notes. A failed real estate venture with a name similar to "Watergate"? Check. Her secret emails killed Americans at Benghazi? Sure. This, on the other hand? Really doesn't get even close to the term "controversy". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

First, she's sympathizing with Bernie supporters, despite the clickbait headlines on the Week and Politico (which I believe changed its headline later). If it's to be included, the quote should be presented in its entirety rather than just add out-of-context snippets. That said, as with other news stories that pop up, we should wait and see whether it has legs. If this innocuous audio recording turns into a big thing, then include it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I just read the Politico piece. "Children of the Great Recession" who are "living in their parents’ basement" not because they're some sort of trolls but because nobody can afford anything anymore (unless they're in the 1%). And talking about how she's not far-left or far-right. What's the "controversy" here? Because as I said above, this really doesn't hit any of the notes of a true "Clinton controversy". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

To me, this sounds like her "Basket of deplorables" remark. But I agree that she needs to explain what she meant--it is unclear. So it may be too early for inclusion. However, we could add some context: most millennials support Gary Johnson, as Bill Maher said a few days ago.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"Most millennials" don't support Johnson, they support Clinton. Maher needs to be fact-checked too. Here's a source from two weeks ago (most recent one I could find in a ten second search: "Clinton leads Trump 48 to 23 among likely millennial voters, according to the survey conducted by left-leaning NextGen Climate ... Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who garnered 13 percent, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who had eight percent support." Johnson polls best among millennials, but he doesn't lead among them. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. You could be wrong. Which poll was Maher using?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I just saw the part of his episode with Sarah Silverman where he quotes the number, but I didn't catch a source. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's referencing this one, where Clinton is above Johnson, but not by much. The best way to look at polls is through an aggregator; one poll can be an outlier, but all together they provide a generally constant (and accurate) picture. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Like most millennials, I youtubed it. I doubt he would admit that HRC is lagging behind if she weren't, so it must be true, but obviously we'd need to find out which poll he was quoting.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

HRC isn't lagging behind. According to the above she is ahead of both Johnson and Trump. It seems to me, when this week is assessed, it will show that HRC is well ahead of both, mostly due to the debate, and partly due to Trumps continual missteps - such as taking the bait rather focusing on future "presidential" issues.Steve Quinn (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You may be wrong. Bill Maher suggests she is lagging behind.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is a very interesting CBS News piece about the increased number of presidential polls this year and how they work (on the CBS site) - "Inside the process of presidential surveys". These are characterized as reputable (or high quality) surveys or polls, which they seem to be . Steve Quinn (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The best approach is to present Clinton's comments along with commentary on why some thing she expressing empathy for Sanders' supporters and others who see the remarks as callous. You can listen to the full section at "Hillary Clinton Leaked Audio Calling Bernie Sanders Supporters Losers & How to Target Them for Votes". TFD (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump has made this a campaign issue. I also think the Twitter hashtag is fairly significant. CNBC compares it to her "Basket of deplorables" remark, by the way.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She didn't call them "losers". HRC is clearly talking about how shitty the economy is for students graduating with a heavy debt load and poor job prospects. In other words, she's totally on point. We don't include everything a candidate says with this dumb "false equivalence" thing. These comments do not reach the threshold for inclusion by a long shot. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the best approach is to not present it at all. It's not notable or even controversial. The only reason it got any traction on Twitter is because a couple of media outlets misquoted Clinton and said "basement dwellers", which is outrageously bad journalism designed to get clicks. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The best approach is not to leave out anything that could make Clinton look bad, but to present things she says that attract media attention along with reactions, including from the Clinton campaign. I think that Scjessey comments above ("she's absolutely correct. People on the extreme left and extreme right are whack jobs.") are and interesting defense. Do you know if any of her surrogates are publicly saying that? TFD (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't include everything "she says that attract media attention along with reactions". That would be untenable. We put in things that are important and don't add things that aren't. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

What is important is what attracts media attention, per WP:NPOV, not necessarily what her supporters consider to be important. "Hillary Clinton" related articles do not operate under a separate set of policies. TFD (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The policy I'm most considering at this moment is WP:WEIGHT, and this is undue. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

WEIGHT is part of NPOV. But the relevant section is "Balancing aspects", which says an article "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." (WP:WEIGHT is about opinions, not facts.) Both sections say that weight is determined by reliable sources, not by what editors consider to be important, and neither provide for separate rules for Hillary Clinton related articles. TFD (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This audio comes from the hack, which isn't mentioned at all in this article. Now adding this audio violates WEIGHT. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I never suggested we add the audio file, merely that the article should represent all information, both positive and negative, that reliable sources consider important. If the Clinton campaign thinks that leaked information is inadmissible in news reports, then they can change the law after the election. I don't know why you think the audio is hacked anyway. You said "she's totally on point." Perhaps one of her supporters leaked the audio in order to show how empathetic she is. TFD (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You're suggesting we use the contents of the audio, same thing. It's not a major campaign issue, and I doubt it'll become one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This is silly. No, not includable based on current sourcing, and it does not appear to be a controversy. Give it a few days, as this is in today's NOT NEWS cycle. In the unlikely event that anyone is still talking about it a few days from now we can take stock and see what it means and whether it's relevant and of due weight for the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

TFD, other sources say the audio is from someone hacking emails or something like that. This is how we know it is from a computer hacker turning this over to a conservative leaning website.

I am suggesting that we use what reliable secondary sources have said about the audio. It is not our role to question what the news media chose to report but to summarize it. If you think the mainstream media are biased against Clinton, then take it up with them. TFD (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, I don't think the mainstream media is being biased about this. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I also appreciate you providing a link so I could hear the recording first hand. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the audio recording, first, I think overall this is not different from her overall message during the primaries, if I remember correctly. I am pretty sure she said more than once, the goals for the next president should be more realistic. From what I could tell, Bernie was advocating making changes that could only occur over the period of one or two generations.

Was Bernie intending this to happen during the span of one presidential tenure? This I don't know. My point is, Clinton contrasted her message by advocating achievable or more realistic goals during the tenure of the next presidency. So, this is not really at variance with her message. Also, she and Bernie just publicly announced they are going to work toward free tuition in state colleges (public universities).

This is a progressive dream come true. Also, they announced changes were going to happen with student financing. If there is implication that she is not allied with the progressive movement this would be incorrect. I think if we look we will see that her "campaign" speeches, at some time or other, includes progressive elements. So, there is nothing negative about this audio.

And I recall, just before all the press coverage focused on the primary, it was covering this very issue. Students are graduating with bachelor's degrees as part of the "American Dream"; and they end up underemployed because the jobs aren't, or weren't, out there. So at the time of this audio, this was probably a hot issue in the press. Sorry for the long post. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The reason why this has become a controversy and a campaign issue is that the media and voters feel this is yet another example of an apparent discrepancy between her public speeches in front of everyday Americans and what she tells the donor class behind closed doors. This may be a misguided impression, but this is a template of her entire campaign. This explains her high level of untrustworthiness--which, again, may be wrong (she may be lovely), but that's how people feel.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-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
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles