Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:01, 29 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

Apparently, some excerpts have been released by Wikileaks. I am morally opposed to Wikileaks to be honest, but The Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, CBS News, etc., are all reliable sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

An interesting turn. I think this would belong under the heading of alleged Russian election interference. The focus of the story reported by the sources today seems to be more that Russian state-sponsored hackers may have been behind the hack, and that this may be the bombshell that Assange thinks will destroy Clinton, than that she said anything particularly controversial. There is talk that some of the material may have been altered. As far as the WP:NOT#NEWS cycle, the whole thing seems to be buried on page 3 behind news of Trump's comments about women, and the hurricane sauntering up the Florida coast. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I think at this stage, we may need a separate subsection about those speech transcripts, maybe called "Speeches to Wall Street". This started in the primary, it was highlighted by Sanders, this is still going on, there is no proof about Russia as far as we know (blaming them sounds like HRC's campaign spin to be honest). It's a defining issue in her campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. What has been released is nothing more than emails talking about statements she made that were "flagged" because they could be used against her, which is normal campaign-related discussion and not at all newsworthy. Wikidemon is right that the real story here is Russian interference in an American election. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless the contents of the speeches become a massive thing, it doesn't deserve its own section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The alleged Russian involvement is the locus of the issue, as reported by the sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the campaign spin to dodge the real issue: what she said. Reliable third-party sources have been asking for what she said in those speeches for over a year.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really, no. When Trump had his big chance to use the speeches against Clinton last night, she properly noted that she was talking about Abraham Lincoln (see FACT CHECK) and then pivoted to Russia, which Trump embraced. It's long past time for you to let this go, Zigzig20s. Far too much time has been wasted on this by the good editors of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. There was an RfC which led to consensus for inclusion. You cannot override that. If you're not interested in the topic, no one is forcing you to comment on this discussion. Please don't discourage other editors from adding referenced content for which there is consensus. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The RfC is probably a red herring at this point. The material was already included as of the close of the RfC. Any attempt to glean more from the RfC than that is pointless, and stale. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree, as does the person who closed the RfC. Sorry, there is consensus to include this and you cannot override that. That is why we had an RfC.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You're wrong. Please stop beating the dead horse. Whether we add the Russian hacking to the article at some point has nothing to do with the RfC. For now there's nothing here to see. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13: When you closed the RfC, which led to "overwhelming" consensus for inclusion, you said, "If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that.". Indeed, four months later, there is complete disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording. What shall we do then?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The relevant material was already included. The RfC is stale and apart from you, we have all moved on from this months ago. The passage of time has yielded knew material, which has further reduced the weight value of the speech stuff. Your continued unwillingness to work with the other regular editors of this article has been noted. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not been included at all. You may have disagreed with the RfC but the overwhelming majority of RfC respondents disagreed with you and you do not own this article, so we should respect and honor the RfC. I think User:BU Rob13 could help. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. The RfC does not support your interpretation. The closing (non-admin) editor's opinion was that inclusion was supported, but not with the specific wording you asked for. Moreover, the editor stated that if an agreement could not be reached on the specifics, another RfC might be necessary. My contention at the time was that it (a) lacked the proper context, and (b) was in the wrong section. It is now October, and that discussion ended in April (with a closure in May), which means it is stale. Furthermore, the current version of the article is stable. You are the only editor obsessing over this. Why is that? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, we should respect the RfC. I am certainly not the only one because the overwhelming majority of RfC respondents agreed with me. We know you disagree, but please respect the consensus. Yes, the RfC closer suggested starting another RfC--let's see if he thinks that is necessary, or if we can just go ahead and add the text. The information (namely, that HRC has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street institutions, leading some in the press to wonder what she is hiding) needs to be added, as per consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a current proposal for adding any specific content to the article or an update to an earlier proposal? If so we can see whether it has consensus. I think my position is clear but I'd entertain any serious proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wikidemon and Scjessey: Currently, where in the article does it mention the Goldman Sachs speeches? The RfC resulted in consensus to include that, but I see them nowhere in the article. Zigzig20s would be absolutely right to add a brief mention of them into the article, at the very least, and I would consider its removal to be editing against consensus. Given the very large and well-advertised RfC, that should be included in the article until there is specific consensus to remove it. And no, the close is not my "opinion", it is a binding summary of the consensus reached in that discussion. If you wish to challenge the close itself, feel free to message me on my talk page. ~ Rob₁₃ 01:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The section Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016#Post-2008 election contains the statement: "After she ended her tenure as Secretary of State in 2013, speculation picked up sharply, particularly when she listed her occupation on social media as "TBD". In the meantime, Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations." The RfC, now at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 3#Request for comments, asked the question should the sentence "Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, for $675,000, have become "a campaign issue"" be added back, or is there a better way to add this referenced info?. The RfC close states 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. In the five months since the RfC closure the issue has not been taken up by Clinton's new rival, Donald Trump, to the extent as her old rival, Bernie Sanders, and the main development of note is the release of excerpts of the speeches by Russian hackers via Wikileaks. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13: Thank you for being so reasonable. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a news website, and it wouldn't matter if this hadn't been in the headlines lately, but in actual fact this was mentioned by the media and Sanders in the primary, then by Jill Stein and Kellyanne Conway, then by the media when the donation restrictions for Goldman Sachs top executives came to light, and now by the media because of the release of excerpts (there is no proof it was done by the Russians). I agree that we should respect the outcome of the RfC. Perhaps we could add:

• For over a year during the course of her campaign, Hillary Clinton refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street and big pharmaceutical companies. Opponent Bernie Sanders asked for their release during the primary, as did rival Jill Stein in the general election. Meanwhile, the media wondered if she was hiding anything; they later published information showing that top executives at Goldman Sachs were banned from donating to Donald Trump's campaign, but free to donate to Clinton's. In October 2016, excerpts from the speeches were published by the press. They showed that Clinton believed she could not relate to most Americans because of her rich husband; she admitted she said one thing in public and another thing behind closed doors; and she disclosed information about the Ben Laden raid.

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13: Perhaps you haven't read the extensive and exhaustive discussion that has gone on since the close of the RfC. Your exact words in closing included "though not necessarily using that exact term," and in the months since the closure we have been debating exactly what would be appropriate. Numerous good faith attempts to come up with appropriate text have been made, but Zigzig20s has rebuffed all of them in favor of extreme, non-neutral absurdities like the ludicrous proposal in the comment preceding this one. And now, with the benefit of historical perspective, it is clear the original proposed text was recentism at best. I should also point out that nowhere in WP:RFC does it say a closure is "binding" - only Arbcom has that power. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey: See WP:CON, which details that consensus is our method of deciding article content, and WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, describing what you could do to challenge a close if you disagree with it. You can also refer to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, which lists rejecting community input (with a specific reference to RfCs) as an example of disruptive editing, and WP:BP, which allows blocks in response to disruptive editing. I'm not saying we're anywhere close to anything like that; we're not even on the same continent yet. But a plethora of our most basic policies support that you must follow the consensus reached at an RfC until you can demonstrate that consensus has changed. Further, given how large the RfC was, any alternative consensus developed without an RfC would likely be a local consensus; you'd need an additional RfC if you want to alter the outcome of the issue. On the other hand, Zigzig20s, you have over 100,000 edits, so I won't insult you by treating you like a new editor. "Meanwhile, the media wondered if she was hiding anything." Really? You know perfectly well that that's completely non-neutral, and you haven't even bothered to provide a citation to such an evocative statement. @Wikidemon: Currently, the article states that she gave speeches, but not that the speeches became a campaign issue during the primaries and were questioned by her primary opponent. As per the RfC, that should be added. Until further consensus develops, it should be added minimally and neutrally, meaning something to the effect of "Clinton's practice of giving paid speeches to corporations such as Goldman Sachs was questioned by her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, who called for Clinton to release transcripts of the speeches." This is really a bare minimum that would comply with the RfC outcome. If even that is objectionable to anyone, you'd have to make another RfC, because the current consensus was to include that information in the article. ~ Rob₁₃ 22:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:BU Rob13. It's not my word, but if you want to rephrase it, that's fine. The important thing is to respect the RfC, as you suggest above.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and expanded the material per this discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's sufficient.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It complies with the RfC per the discussion above. If you want additional material, I suggest you begin a new consensus-building discussion for it at the bottom of this talk page. But this matter is now concluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:BU Rob13. Can we please add "Goldman Sachs"? Also the fact that this was not just an issue during the primary, but throughout the campaign (to this day), and that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts, until excerpts were published in the press? And the content of the excerpts?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 @Scjessey: I did not threaten to block you. In fact, I explicitly stated that we aren't even on the same continent as the blocking policy having anything to do with this. I was explaining the policy basis for consensus being binding until a new consensus is reached, and the blocking policy happens to be a part of that. I've been pinged to this page nearly a dozen times since I closed that RfC, and I'm somewhat shocked that the RfC result still hadn't been implemented months later. Clarity was needed that the result cannot simply be ignored, especially given some of the incorrect statements made above about how consensus-building works. @Zigzig20s: You may not think it's sufficient, but it complies with the letter and spirit of the RfC result. A new RfC would be needed to go farther (except possibly for the addition of "Goldman Sachs" as an example of a corporation she gave speeches to, which was well-supported at the past RfC). @Wikidemon: Thanks for the expansion. ~ Rob₁₃ 23:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

. "Goldman Sachs" should definitely be added. By the way, I think this should be in the "controversies" subsection as opposed to buried in the "post-2008 election" section, as it has most definitely been a constant "controversy" throughout the entire campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I added Goldman Sachs specifically, the issue of not releasing transcripts, and that it was an issue in the general election too, all of which are helpful for context and introduce useful sources. Generally, articles are best organized chronologically or else thematically by subject matter. Adding too many things to a "controversies" section creates a lot of problems with flow, is hard to deal with for POV, and can turn into a WP:COATRACK. The story of an election campaign is about issues, fundraising, tactics, actions, and yes, some amount of sparring between opponents. Designating every issue as a controversy simply because opponents cast it as one is not a good idea. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry. Give us a minute. We have failed to reach consensus about where to place this information. I will have a think.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, is there no consensus to add the Goldman Sachs top executive donation restrictions and the content of the excerpts? User:BU Rob13 suggested starting another RfC for it if we have to.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon, BU Rob13 and I all agree with the edits performed by Wikidemon. You are the only editor disagreeing. Time to close. And you don't NEED another RfC unless discussion has broken down on proposed changes, and you haven't even proposed such changes yet. Do so in a NEW SECTION at the bottom of the page if you must, but do not extend this discussion because it has ended. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

No, please stop trying to close topics before we are done. You did this several times (with the campaign book for example). If you don't like a topic, no one is forcing you to look at it. There is no consensus for where this information should go (indeed, it is currently buried in the primary even though it's been an issue throughout the campaign). The new RfC is not my idea, it's User:BU Rob13 's: "A new RfC would be needed to go farther."Zigzig20s (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with Wikidemon's edits. I think that's sufficient and any more goes to WP:UNDUE weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You might think it has gotten undue weight in reliable third-party sources for over a year and still is, but that's not for us to decide. This issue did not end in the primary and it makes zero sense to bury it in the primary subsection.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It was a small issue in the primaries and it's an even smaller issue now, even with a few excerpts released. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more, due to RS weight. It was even mentioned at the last debate. Not a small issue at all. I am busy preparing a meeting for tomorrow, but we should think about where to place this and where to add the content of the excerpts (since she still won't release the transcripts); I suppose we could add her line of defense (blaming it on the Russians, no mea culpa). Saying one thing to the public and the opposite to Goldman Sachs.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on "weight" from "RS's", the most important thing to come out of the second debate was Ken Bone. And yet he isn't going to be mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

But this is on the same topic--not a trivial issue at all. Why would we try to hide the content of the transcripts? According to The Guardian, this is what her campaign wants to do.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It is kind of trivial, in its way. I just came across this New Yorker piece that calls the leaks "illuminating but unsurprising" and "illuminating but underwhelming". The content of them is really minimal. Hillary's campaign is scripted - like we didn't already know this. John Podesta has a really great risotto recipe. Yum! What more should we be adding than what's already there? She's allowed to give these speeches, she's allowed to have different public and private messages (much, as she pointed out, Lincoln did regarding slavery). This is a whole lot of nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Does it seem trivial to you that she is saying one thing to the public and the opposite to Goldman Sachs about financial regulations? That she pretends to be in favor of protectionism (against TPP) but dreams of "a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders"? These are real policy differences behind closed doors. Why won't she release those transcripts for the American people to know what's what?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've unclosed this because the editor who "closed" it is not uninvolved, and their rationale is invalid. Not every politician gives policy positions to the public and the exact opposite to her donors like Goldman Sachs: only HRC does this. The content of the transcripts has received substantial media coverage in reliable third-party sources and it has become a campaign issue; it should therefore appear in the article. Do we need to start another RfC to add this?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Now you are just being disruptive and tendentious. Closing a thread does not need an uninvolved editor. It just needs the thread to be over, which it is, because the RfC has been satisfied. And "Only HRC does this" is a BLP violation, because it's a blatant lie about a living person. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You are not uninvolved, and the discussion is not over, because as I explained several times this topic is not just about the RfC, but also where to place the info, and what the content of those transcripts is. And no, it's not. Name other politicians who have told the exact opposite policies to Goldman Sachs? As far as we know, there is just one.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You are correct to point out that there is ample content about the Trump allegations but not enough about Hillary's. However, I disagree with you about weight of RS regarding the excerpts from HRC's secret Goldman Sachs speech transcripts. There would be enough references to create Hillary Clinton financial misconduct allegations (to echo our undue content about Trump). What I suggest right now is simply that we add encyclopedic content to this campaign article about what she has been telling Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street and big pharmaceutical companies, as it is the exact opposite of what she has been telling the American people. Since we are dealing with campaign policies here, it is absolutely relevant to this article. We could start with the fact, as reported by The Guardian that she has told the American people she would reign in Wall Street, and yet she told the opposite to Goldman Sachs about financial regulations.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Since this is unrelated, please move it to a new section at the bottom of this talk page and allow this section to be closed. Also, "Hillary Clinton financial misconduct allegations" is never going to exist per WP:POVFORK. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. It is not unrelated. It is absolutely germane. This topic is the Goldman Sachs transcripts and we are discussing the content of the Goldman Sachs transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No, this is a new thing not related to the RfC, which this discussion was about. Please just do what I asked and open a new section, otherwise this will continue to be an unwieldy mess as we are forced to wade through all the previous POV bullshit when we add comments. Pretty please, with a cherry on top. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. This topic is about the unreleased (or secret) Goldman Sachs transcripts. Sure, there was an RfC because some editors (including you) wanted to keep the information out of this campaign article, and the community consensus as a result of the RfC was for inclusion. But now we are also discussing the content of those transcripts. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to come here. But let's try to focus on what's at stake here: what she said in those speeches, as per weight of RS. For example, the exact opposite of what she has told the American voter about financial regulations. Or her hidden support for transnational free trade. Real policy differences between her public statements and secret speeches.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Could we please agree on a short text to add? Something like, "Clinton campaigned on the need for more financial regulations, yet in a private speech she told Goldman Sachs the opposite."?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:49, 22 October 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

Consensus is to include the material if an improved wording obtains consensus. The headcount is almost exactly two to one for inclusion of this material in some form - although not for inclusion exactly as proposed, because many "exclude" and "include" opinions underline the need to improve the proposed wording.

Now, 2:1 is borderline as far as our standard of "rough consensus" goes: it's a very strong majority, but not so strong as to impose itself without question, and because this is an issue of editorial judgment I can't really weigh the arguments of both sides in the light of policy and practice. However, I think that because of the mentioned reservations we can determine that there is no consensus for including the material in the proposed form, and so one way or another editors are going to need to work together to find a more broadly acceptable wording.

I therefore suggest that if an amended wording can be found to which there is no strong opposition by a significant number of good-faith editors (on grounds other than opposition in principle to mentioning the issue), then this RfC constitutes adequate consensus for including that wording.  Sandstein  19:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Note 5 - Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, has doubled down on Clinton's deplorable comment in an interview on Meet the Press by claiming "I think a lot of the people that stand by Donald Trump are deplorable. And the things that they say are deplorable." Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 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)
• Exclude. WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM. The Washington Post question was: "Do you think it’s fair or unfair to describe a large portion of Trump’s supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities?" The question did not mention Hillary Clinton or her choice of words, and starting the last sentence with "this attack" is your clearly biased POV. Your summation of Flegenheimer’s NY Times article is also way off the mark. WP:NPOV. The remarks received some coverage, but it was never a controversy. Public attention has moved on. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Include. But with significant rewording to more accurately describe what she said... Let's not kid ourselves, just because he makes gaffes all the time doesn't mean that her making one is therefore not notable. As a politician, and by those standards, the comment was notable in its use of the word half and should be included saying as much. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Building a consensus formulation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 25, 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)

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)

My suggestion is not to bother with this stuff at all. Just leave it out. And seriously, tacking on a weak ass sentence at the end of a quote purposefully taken out of context and pretending that's "balance", where that added sentence actually summarizes what the quote was really about is pretty much the definition of violating POV and WEIGHT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: You reverted my revert to the proposed consensus version, so I can't revert back because of WP:1RR. However, the version you restored, as altered by two prior editors FallingGravity and Wikidemon, had not been discussed by them. We are trying to build a consensus version here and I have taken into account all incoming comments before adding the text to the article. Please make your suggestions here before intervening further. — JFG 13:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: you have a difficulty -- this edit removes quotation marks from the section title, something you have now done twice in the last 24 hours. Hence, a 1RR violation. I suggest self-reverting. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that's a purely cosmetic change. Any comments on substance from your side? — JFG 15:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

First, the RfC is still open. Though the "include" votes outnumber the "exclude" ones it's hardly a slam-bang. Even if there is consensus to include the material, that hardly argues for an entire heading and two paragraph long "controversies" subsection. It's incorrect to characterize it as primarily a controversy, that's beginning to make the controversy section into a coatrack. Rather, it's part of the usual back and forth sniping between candidates leading up to an election. The proposed text is not good. It contains excessive quotations and position statements, as well as unencyclopedic opinion. "Millions of Americans" is campaign-style rhetoric, not encyclopedic tone. "Expressed regret" is inaccurate, as is inviting "deplorable Americans" on stage. "pointed the label back at Clienton" is inaccurate. "A rallying cry" is unencyclopeidc tone. It shouldn't be called a 'gaffe', and the fact that some sources made an inapt comparison to Romney's 47% of Americans comment is not relevant to the campaign. I don't think it's reasonable to have a so-called consensus discussion in the middle of an RfC, much less insist that a version people are editing in the article in the meanwhile represents consensus, which is why I'm waiting to participate until the RfC is closed. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Even if this is included the "millions of Americans" part needs to go, as it's pure editorializing. Second, some of those "include" votes were/are based on the notion that "this is like Romney's 47% remark". That was WP:CRYSTALBALL when those !votes were made. Now it's pretty much obvious that that is not the case at all. It's nothing like that, people got over it, most people, outside the far-right blogs and faux-media moved on, a large number of people actually seem to agree with her. So maybe the RfC should be restarted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, here's the obvious point: JFG is a contributor to the RFC, right? Then WTF is he doing "closing" the RfC? And then pretending that his edit is a "consensus version"? Get real dude. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't have to wait 30 days, but an (experienced) uninvolved editor should properly weigh consensus and close the discussion. Also, material was added in addition to the proposed text in the RfC. The first time it was removed, it should have stayed out until consensus was formed for its inclusion, per the prominent edit notice.- MrX 23:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct. And somebody just posted a close request to that effect. In the meantime, I'm still open to constructive suggestions on the exact text to include, because the OP's text was deemed insufficient by several commenters. — JFG 05:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

First, you're not being "attacked", you're just being criticized for trying to close an RfC in which you've been quite active, which is pretty sketchy. Second, there's no "time sensitive" issue here unless someone's purpose for including this material is to try and influence the outcome of the election - but this is an encyclopedia, not a god damn tabloid, and that kind of approach sort of betrays the intention of WP:ADVOCACY. Third, stating that only minor alterations to your proposed text constitute "constructive" discussion, while rejecting this POV nonsense wholesale is not, appears to be a (fairly transparent) attempt to manipulate the discussion by framing it in a way which makes meaningful disagreement with your position impossible a priori - and that's an underhanded tactic. Fourth, it's worth recalling at this point that this RfC was started by a user who is now topic banned from this area, and for good reason. That sort of cast doubt on the legitimacy of the whole process (the fact that this RfC was disruptive to begin with has been noted by several users above).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I refute any accusation of partisanship. Please note that in this discussion, and in many others related to the election, I have been working towards consensus by including relevant comments made by both supporters and opponents of the proposed inclusion. Your position that nothing should be included has been made loud and clear, but it doesn't reflect the wider community opinion at this point. So your best way forward would be actually proposing some concrete alterations, and accepting that other people will suggest different ones until we reach a formulation that nobody is super happy with but everybody can grudgingly live with. You can't with a straight face call "POV nonsense" a well-sourced summary of what has been actually said by both political sides and numerous serious commentators about this incident. Even when I try to take your remark into account, you blast me for "tacking on a weak ass sentence" (a sentence describing exactly what you asked to add) and you fail to suggest any alternative except "leave it all out". If you want your arguments to be heard, please work with the people who are actually listening to you. — JFG 08:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What is our proposed text so far? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The accusations and commentary about Trump and his supporters engaging in racist, sexist, etc. behavior are a biographical and campaign issue for Trump, not Clinton. Clinton's saying the same thing as everyone else is certainly not a controversy. The only controversy part, if it can be called a controversy, is that she said half of Trump's supporters are deplorable, when the actual number is less than half or perhaps they are not so deplorable. So if this is going to be described as a controversy the content would be roughly that Clinton described Trump's supporters as deplorable, and after initially bristling at the statement Trump and his supporters coopted it as a matter of self-identification. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Building a consensus formulation, round 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acting upon the RfC close, I'm now restarting the consensus-building exercise towards a good enough formulation. Starting with the proposed version as amended earlier. Please comment below and I'll incorporate changes as they are adopted. — JFG 10:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

On August 25, 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." Donald Trump criticized Clinton's remark as potentially insulting to millions of Americans. Political analysts compared this comment to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe in 2012 and Clinton's approach was deemed unfair by many Democrat voters as well. The following day Clinton 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.

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. ^ Blake, Aaron (September 26, 2016). "Voters strongly reject Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' approach". The Washington Post.
6. Reilly, Katie (September 10, 2016). "Hillary Clinton Says She Regrets Part of Her 'Deplorables' Comment". Time.
7. Cummings, William (September 12, 2016). "'Deplorable' and proud: Some Trump supporters embrace the label". USA Today.
8. Hagen, Lisa (September 10, 2016). "Supporters join Trump on stage: We are not deplorable". The Hill.
9. Trudo, Hanna; Shepard, Steven (September 12, 2016). "Trump releases new ad hitting Clinton for 'deplorables' remark". Politico.

I suggest 48 hours of further comments and consensus-building, i.e. until Tuesday 18 October 12:00 UTC, after which the text will be included and follow the normal editorial process. — JFG 10:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a number of problems with the proposed text. I don't think we should have any of it, frankly, but in the interests of trying to work constructively I am offering an alternative. Criticism came almost exclusively from political opponents, according to the sources used, so that needs to be stated. "Millions of Americans" does not appear to be supported by the sources used, and is vague and wishy-washy anyway. Most of what follows from "The 'Deplorables' moniker" does not have anything to do with the Clinton campaign. As I said in the previous discussion, the "polling data" misrepresents the views of Democrats, because the question asked in the survey did not match what Clinton said. Finally, I've removed the weasel words (again!) from the Romney comparison and rearranged the end to make it read better. I have no objection to the sources used, so I have not included them. So here's my suggested text:

On August 25, 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 by political opponents and compared to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe. The following day, she expressed regret for saying "half" while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified "hateful views and voices".

Finally, I respectfully suggest you retract the arbitrary 48-hour deadline you imposed. It should not be added to the article until there is consensus, however long it takes. There's no rush. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Thanks for your input. I agree with attributing criticism to her opponents, namely quoting Trump himself as the sources do; see my edit. Some editors would like to drop the first sentence mentioning her prior alt-right speech (see below #Deplorables section); what do you think? The WaPo piece titled "Voters strongly reject Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' approach" looks significant enough that we should include it, perhaps with a different wording: the rejection of this blanket characterization by Democrats as well as Republicans is the key theme of this report. I suggest trimming things to "deemed unfair by many Democrat voters as well" and letting readers refer to the source for details. Finally, the appropriation of the "deplorables" moniker by Trump supporters is well-documented and has endured to this day, so it deserves inclusion. I'm open to wording changes and extra sources for this part, which now comes last in the proposed paragraph.

The 48-hour deadline is here to ensure that we move forward; we have already waited for the full 30-day RfC period and we can't let this glaring omission about a significant campaign event drag on until everybody's happy with the text (that will never happen). Yes it's arbitrary but I'm confident that, with a spattering of good faith from all involved, we'll reach consensus on some kind of mention fast enough, then normal editing can resume. — JFG 10:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are moving in the right direction, User:JFG; however, I still feel strongly that you cannot use that poll to link the views of Democrats to the "deplorables" comments. The question asked in the poll was way too unspecific to make a direct link, and the RS only vaguely refers to it in the headline (from which you presumably took "approach"). I would still favor excluding polling data completely, especially since it was only a single poll. I also think everything from "The 'Deplorables' moniker" onwards has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign, but in the interests of getting this done I am no longer going to consider this a dealbreaker. As to the first sentence, I think it does give useful context, but to be perfectly honest it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as newsworthy. It would be fair to say I'm neutral as to its inclusion/exclusion. In summary, remove "and Clinton's approach was deemed unfair by many Democrat voters as well" and you have my support. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done I removed the part you opposed and inserted the text into the article. Thanks for your assistance. — JFG 19:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thank you for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• USER JFG: Did I miss someone putting you in charge of this Talk? You edited the closed RfC by adding an official-looking comment to the admin’s closing notes, and you seem to be trying to impose your views by arbitrarily closing an ongoing discussion, starting a new one, and setting a deadline for conclusion of that discussion or else. The RfC close clearly states "… that there is no consensus for including the material in the proposed form …", and here’s your "new" proposal, exactly as proposed before and strongly objected to by numerous editors. Here’s my proposal for a neutral version:

Speaking at a New York LGBT fundraiser for her on Sept. 9, 2016, Clinton said that "… just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables" because they are "… racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic …". She continued to say that "the other basket … are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down … and they’re just desperate for change." Trump said the remarks showed "her true contempt for everyday Americans;" some of his Twitter followers added the attribute "deplorable" to their names. Truth-o-Meter The following day, Clinton issued a statement saying that she regretted saying "half" and continued her criticism of a Trump campaign built "… largely on prejudice and paranoia …". Time

Several of the other sources should also be included, TBA if and when the time comes. Signing off with a not-quite-out-of-context Trump quote: "And some, I assume, are good people." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I'm not "in charge" or "imposing my views", I'm just trying to reach consensus and move on. I separated the discussions to clarify what was debated before the RfC close and what is being debated after. Editors who "strongly opposed" typically wanted to include nothing; now the community has decided that this event is notable enough for inclusion and we are collectively refining the text. — JFG 10:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Mrs. Clinton did not give that speech on August 25! Matt Flegenheimer's NY Times article on August 25 is about something entirely different, and it was seriously misquoted and misinterpreted by JFG and doesn't belong with this so-called basket of deplorables "controversery" (IMO!). See also my remarks at the end of the new "Deplorables" section (currently last one on this Talk page). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This sentence was added for context per request of another editor; I'm only curating here, not misquoting or misinterpreting; please WP:AGF. — JFG 10:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You have no respect for consensus, you just edit things your way after everyone has moved on. Fine, enjoy yourself; I'm not going to fight over this, but let it be clear that I have no respect towards your attitude. — JFG 21:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

JFG, as User:Space4Time3Continuum2x says above " Did I miss someone putting you in charge of this Talk?" You made a proposal and now you insist that just because you made it it's "consensus". It's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is closed, folks. Please do not extend it. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Specific wording

Romney comparison

An editor has restored a statement, not supported by the sources cited, that "Political analysts compared this comment to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe in 2012.". Four sources are cited.

• The first is an NPR piece that says only that the comments "remind of" remarks by Obama, Romney, and Paul Ryan. It then goes on to compare and contrast statements by various candidates about their opponents' supporters. It is not fair to say that the main point of the piece is that Clinton's statement is like Romney's,. The piece does not say that commentators have compared the two. It is a piece by a journalist described on various NPR sites as "NPR's lead editor for politics and digital audience".
• The second does not describe the deplorable's comment at all in relation to Romeny, or claim that political analysts do so. Rather it quotes "Republican pollster Frank Luntz" saying so.
• The third, likewise, does not discuss the comment in the context of Romeny or say that political analysts do. Rather, it says that it "struck some Republicans as similar".
• The fourth also does not compare the two comments or say that political analysts do. Rather, it says that voters polled about the comments rejected them in about the same proportion as Romney, but then goes on to say that "it's not clear" that the Clinton quote would have the same kind of effect on the election, because"Romney's comment might have alienated people who actually might have voted for him" — hardly a comparison.

So of the four sources, only one, arguably, claims that Clinton's comment is similar, but it is hardly the only comparison or main point of the story. Using it as a primary source to generalize about what political commentators say is weak, particularly when the other three sources, whether or not their authors are political commentators, bring Romney up in the context of political opponents and voter reactions, and do not say the comments are similar. If it is true that political commentators claimed similarity we would need sources to support that. Either way, I don't think the sources support that bringing up Romney is the most pertinent public reaction to the quote. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:49, 29 October 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)

The Atlantic has only ever made three presidential endorsements: Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson, and Hillary Clinton. I'mm gonna add that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Deplorables

Still no mention in the article while it is still being brought up on the Sunday morning political talk programs. NBC, Meet the Press, interview with Joe Biden. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• The absence of coverage of the "deplorables" controversy is a fault with the article. I suggest adding it very briefly, and building coverage tentatively.

JFG's version (above 10:40, 16 October 2016) above reads OK to me. Scjessey's version (14:04, 16 October 2016) reads on the short side. Scjessey glosses GOP and Trump responses ("was criticized by political opponents and compared"), I would think a little more information is warrented, one or two sourced examples of the criticism. At this point, I see no justification for having less than Scjessey's brief version as written, with expansion only as explicitly agreed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

JFG's version is definitely not okay. It contains a bunch of opinionated and POV material. A minal version would be something like this:

On August 25, 2016, Clinton gave a speech in which she said that "half of Trump's supporters what I call the basket of deplorables." The "Deplorables" moniker was later adopted by Trump and his supporters.

- Wikidemon (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon, of course the material cited will include opinion and POV. The NPOV requirement does not preclude sources containing it. JFG's version is arguably excessive, but yours, devoid of reference? The second sentence is too terse, almost unintelligible. Was how adopted, and to what effect? There are no words commenting on the reception of the speech. Yours is excessively brief. But do put it in, because it is certainly not too much. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Which of the following references are acceptable?

• Clinton's denunciation of alt-right in NYT and association of Trump with it.Deplorables in context, NPRDeplorables speech BloombergDeplorables comment NYTWalkback TimeDeplorables Trump tee shirts USA TodayPushback by Trump and supporters, The HillTrump ad about deplorables remark, PoliticoPublic reaction, Washington Post

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.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Fred, they could all arguably be considered acceptable, but together they are excessive, and generally they are all too close to be called good sources. Are there any considered pieces of writing, written at least a week later? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Mrs. Clinton did not give that speech on August 25! Matt Flegenheimer's NY Times article on August 25 is about something entirely different, and it was seriously misquoted and misinterpreted by JFG and doesn't belong with this so-called basket of deplorables "controversery" (IMO!). Also, after JFG trying to impose (again, IMO) his views and his deadline on this topic, why are you now starting an additional thread on this? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Correct. That reference is about another matter, her association of Trump with Alt-Right. Should not be used for deplorables section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The sentence about the August 25 alt-right speech was added per request of Muboshgu who argued that it provided appropriate context to her September 9 address. I'm only trying to build consensus by curating suggestions from various editors. I'm getting a bit tired of being accused of "imposing my views". — JFG 09:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's see if it comes up in the debate tonight. If it does, it certainly has stuck and I will try to put something in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it didn't. The treatment already in the article seems satisfactory for the time being. I recommend this section be archived. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Frankly, this part of the article has been ruined. We now have an overlong quote from Clinton that really isn't necessary, and it is overcited to the point of absurdity. What should be nothing more than a small paragraph mentioned a Clinton comment that achieved notoriety has morphed into a veritable tome that crosses the undue line. We can do better. I suggest we return to the text JFG and I worked out together and implemented with this edit and then try to address any concerns editors have on this talk page, rather than edit warring over it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and shortened the quotation, most of which was an attack on Trump and not about the deplorables comment. I also removed the statement that political commentators compared it to Romney's 47% statement, which was unsupported and in fact contradicted by the cites. The cites variously said that it was not like Romney's 47% comment (because it did not alienate potential votes for her), that it remained to be seen whether it would affect voters, or that Republican operatives — not commentators — were comparing her statement to Romney's. If anybody really wants to wade through the sources I think you'll find that they only compare in a "compare and contrast" sense, and conclude that despite the quote being reminiscent, it is actually in contrast. So not terribly helpful to explain things to the reader. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that seems like a reasonable compromise. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, Scjessey. I just love to get tarred with the weasel brush, but you may want to take another look at your Misplaced Pages Xref: "… views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." Also, it seems that your wording was unsupported not only by my additional sources, which you removed, but also by those already there. I support Wikidemon’s removal of the sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that I already agreed to Wikidemon's version, was there a point to your comment? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Two points, actually: Objecting to the unwarranted weasel accusation and to the snarky summary dismissal of a viewpoint in your edit summary. You may have considered the comparison to be unimportant but that doesn’t make it so, whether you remove the "eleventy billion references" or not. Admittedly, I was already peeved about you and TFG ignoring both my text proposal and my objection to the arbitrary - and short - deadline. Funny thing is, I considered removing the "gaffe" sentence altogether but decided to be polite, leave it in, and merely change it to reflect the sources more accurately. Oh well, I’ll know better next time. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much any use of "many" is as a weasel word. And I also objected to the short deadline. At this point, it looks like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016#Basket_of_deplorables seems good enough. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Khan ad

Are these two sentences about a recent Clinton campaign ad featuring Khizr and Ghazala Khan, placed under the "Advertising" section, worthy of inclusion? My initial reaction is "yes," because

(1) the ad got a significant amount of media attention (CNN and Washington Post are cited, and dozens more news sources have articles of their own about it, e.g., NYT, CBS, Politico)

(2) TV advertising is a critical thing in campaigns, and this ad is running in seven "battleground states"; and

(3) the length (two sentences) seems proportionate and the placement (under "Advertising") seems reasonable.

Thoughts? I am courtesy-tagging @JackGavin:, who added the material at issue. Neutrality 02:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly. Khizr and Ghazala Khan is a notable story, but it was not even mentioned on this page. Why? Of course it must be mentioned, one way or another. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed it, because there was no consensus, but you reinserted it without consensus. When we edit, there is a message saying, "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.". Does this mean you are allowed to reinsert the content without consensus? I am genuinely confused. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, why would we try to turn this article into a campaign ad, by giving undue weight to her own campaign ads?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to actually make a substantive argument, not just make a flat assertion ("it's undue") or rely on circular reasoning. In other words, Misplaced Pages policies aren't magical incantations; you have to actually explain why you think a policy applies.

To the point: (1) do you really believe that two sentences in a lengthy article is "undue," and if so, why?, and (2) is there any reason whatsoever to believe that discussing a campaign ad, with citations to the reliable sources that do the same, is somehow equivalent to "turn this article into a campaign ad"? Neutrality 03:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is undue weight and POV. It's advertising, basically (by definition).Zigzig20s (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, that is merely making an arbitrary assertion. You offer no actual reason to believe why it is "undue weight," "POV" (how??), or "advertising." Neutrality 03:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

A campaign ad is advertising is POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you seriously not understand the distinction between describing/discussing a campaign ad and being a campaign ad? Neutrality 03:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think it's undue to discuss POV content like a campaign ad.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That is, simply put, a stunningly inaccurate understanding of NPOV. Neutrality 04:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying you believe that "The Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza described the ad as "remarkably powerful,"" is NPOV? Really? Will it be similarly NPOV if we quote another critic calling it, "remarkably horrible"? I mean please. Give me a break.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, yes. He's a very notable commentator, the source is reliable, and it's given in-text attribution. Your objection basically boils down to "I don't like it" (and maybe "the media is biased against me"). But that's not a policy-based rationale. In any case, this back-and-forth clearly does not seem productive. I will wait for other editors to chime in. Neutrality 04:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is POV to add "screaming fan" opinions, especially from someone who works for The Washington Post: they've endorsed HRC for POTUS! We can cite them for NPOV content, but not when they express their opinions.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong on every count. The editorial side of a newspaper is separate from the newsroom side, and so the endorsement is completely irrelevant. Cillizza is a political reporter, not a "screaming fan." "Powerful" is a completely fine descriptor even in a straight-news story. And since we give in-text attribution, it's irrelevant whether it's an "opinion" anyway because we clearly attribute the opinion. Neutrality 04:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe you think "powerful" is NPOV. It's not a neutral term by any stretch of the imagination.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Other sources besides The Washington Post also describe it as powerful . As long as "powerful" is attributed to one of these sources, it is appropriate to include it.- MrX 12:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, the ad is noteworthy and the material is worthy of inclusion, especially given the related controversy. It has been extensively covered by major news organizations: CBS News, CNN, USA Today, Time, Fox News, Bloomberg, and The Washington Post. While a campaign ad is obviously not neutral, we are certainly able to discuss it in this article and explain to readers why it's noteworthy without violating the NPOV policy. The proposed text presented by Neutrality does that without any problems.- MrX 12:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do you want to say it's powerful? Some might think it's horrible. We shouldn't add judgements, even if they are direct quotes from commentators. Or if we do, we should add both sides.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Because our readers need some context to understand why this ad stands out from all the others and because several sources have independently used that same adjective. I'm not sure what other side you are referring to, but Ive shown my four sources, so can I see yours?- MrX 13:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oh dear, this is an admin's wet dream, that little edit war over those 1,349 bytes; I was wondering who the first 2R victim was going to be. I'm glad all of y'all thought the better of it.

  Allow this admin to make a few comments. a. "Since when has Misplaced Pages become a mouthpiece for political ads?" (I'm quoting JFG.) It is not, and that sentence is crooked to begin with. Reporting on an ad does not mean you're a mouthpiece for the campaign. You were not the only one confusing these things. b. if y'all decide on including the ad, I suggest you leave out a bit of the detail in the description of the ad. c. if a notable person describes the ad as "powerful", and it's well-sourced and all, and you include it with proper attribution, then it is not Misplaced Pages saying the ad is powerful. Zigzig20s, this is you again (besides the aforementioned confusion), and this "other side" stuff makes no sense: do you want to find a commentator who says it is not powerful? This confusion between attributed statement and statement is really elementary. So "Why do you want to say it's powerful?" completely misses the point, to the point of CIR. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should be reporting on campaign ads, but if there is consensus to do so, I rest my case. Whatever.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Should we add who paid for this ad--which Super PAC or donors?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a great ad, and it certainly has received media coverage; however, I am not personally swayed by the arguments for inclusion. It seems rather incidental to the campaign in general, and there's no evidence in reliable sources that it has been "effective" in moving the election needle. This puts me in the awkward position of being on the "same side" as Zigzig20s on this matter, albeit for different reasons. I may need a lie down. I'm not going to object to its inclusion, but I think at this point it is better left out of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hells bells, I think I just entered the twilight zone.- MrX 17:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL "compromised account". Consider this proof to the right wing whack jobs that I really am a neutral editor ;-) -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Nuanced position – We can perhaps mention the existence of this particular ad as notable, but we absolutely shouldn't insert a value judgment about its "powerful" quality, even attributed. Several editors think that Chris Cillizza's opinion is worth mentioning; well, why wasn't his opinion worth mentioning when he wrote back in February that 1 in 5 voters considered Hillary Clinton "dishonest"? This was rightly considered undue by RfC. So, this reporter can be lauded for his capacity to make positive or negative statements about the candidate, and to uphold neutrality our editor community should take both or none. I'd rather we take none. — JFG 09:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Content of the unreleased/leaked Goldman Sachs speech transcripts

Some discussion

We were having a discussion about the content of the Goldman Sachs speech transcripts earlier, but it was closed by an editor (who also closed another topic shortly after), and I was asked to re-start it here. I am confused, but happy to do as I'm told. Tentatively, I suggest adding, "Clinton campaigned for more financial regulations, yet in a private speech she told Goldman Sachs the opposite.". The source I am using is:

• Walters, Joanna (October 9, 2016). "Clinton campaign fends off questions about WikiLeaks 'speech excerpts'". The Guardian. Retrieved October 23, 2016.

We could also add:

Years later, however, Clinton told her Goldman Sachs audience it was “an oversimplification” to blame “our banking system causing this everywhere”, the email excerpts show. “There’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened,” she said in a 2013 speech, according to the leaked excerpts, “with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? “You guys help us figure it out and let’s make sure we do it right this time.”

— Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs speech, as quoted by The Guardian

Would that be OK? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that's a pretty egregious misrepresentation of the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. A hideous misrepresentation. The sources say nothing even close to what you suggest. Neutrality 03:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

How would you rephrase it please? I am happy to hear suggestions--that's why I started this topic. Of course, as long as she won't release the full transcripts, it is hard to know exactly what her policy positions are--but this is as good as it gets until she does, so we should include something. Thanks again for your interest.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the longstanding language that is already in the article: "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations, including Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks. The speeches, and Clinton's not releasing their transcripts, would be raised as an issue by her opponents during the upcoming primary and general election campaigns." Neutrality 03:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're off topic. This is about the content of the speeches, as the title and first sentence suggest. Specifically, her various policy positions on financial regulations or lack thereof. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this failure to understand on your part is willful or not, but Clinton's "positions on financial regulations" is described at political positions of Hillary Clinton and in multiple primary and secondary sources. There is little or no direct tie between that issue and "the content of the speeches" and no reliable source that I have seen indicates anything solid to the contrary. Neutrality 03:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you not read The Guardian? Please see above (and direct quote). This is happening in the midst of her campaign, so I believe it is relevant to her campaign, as per RS weight. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian article does not indicate that Clinton's speeches was at odds with her publicly stated and well-known positions on financial regulation. So no, we're not going to shoehorn in some innuendo into the article that isn't clearly supported by a reliable, cited source. Neutrality 04:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

And I quote from The Guardian: "Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, similarly struggled to answer questions about the purported excerpts, including a 2013 speech to Goldman Sachs bankers which discussed Clinton having a separate “public and a private position”.".Zigzig20s (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

And the article goes on to say that this could have been a reference to a public position and what a person is willing to concede in a legislative-negotiation context. You want to insert text based on a distortion, or at the very best a stretching, of the source. I'm not going to engage with you anymore on this point because it's an absolutely fruitless endeavor. Neutrality 04:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Mook and Podesta try to pretend there's no difference, but The Guardian suggests otherwise (see quote above). Now from The New York Times:

• "Most strikingly, Mrs. Clinton did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation, a major achievement of President Obama and congressional Democrats in the wake of the crisis — and a target of Wall Street lobbying ever since. Instead, Mrs. Clinton suggested that it had been passed for “political reasons” by lawmakers panicked by their angry constituents. In a January 2016 speech in New York, amid her tough primary campaign with Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Clinton vowed to defend the Dodd-Frank Act and expand financial regulation to new territory, such as hedge funds and high-frequency traders.":
• Chozick, Amy; Confessore, Nicholas (October 15, 2016). "Hacked Transcripts Reveal a Genial Hillary Clinton at Goldman Sachs Events". The New York Times. Retrieved October 23, 2016.

Also:

• "In a separate speech to Goldman Sachs employees the same month, Mrs. Clinton said it was an “oversimplification” to blame the global financial crisis of 2008 on the U.S. banking system.":
• Barbaro, Michael; Chozick, Amy; Confessore, Nicholas (October 7, 2016). "Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street". The New York Times. Retrieved October 23, 2016.

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk

• A suggestion. I usually do not edit US politics and have more or less fresh eyes here. I think three first short paragraphs immediately after the title "Post-2008 election" are well sourced, but their meaning and relevance to the page is impossible to understand for a casual reader like myself. Adding what was suggested above would make this even less understandable for a casual reader. I would suggest to remove these three short paragraphs and consolidate the remaining much better text ("Decision-making process" and "Expectations") under the title "Post-2008 election". My very best wishes (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we delete all the content about the speeches? Sorry, we had an RfC which led to clear consensus for inclusion. What we may need to do however, is flesh it out with more information about the content of those speeches, as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what consensus for inclusion are you talking about? If about that one, it did not result in anything, and it was not really about the text I am talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The RfC is there. User:BU Rob13, can you please explain this to the editor above? They want to delete it--after we went through with the RfC and you had to put your foot down to make sure the RfC was not ignored.

But now we have moved on to another issue--the content of the speeches--specifically, her public and private policy positions on financial regulations. Can we please stick to discussing this?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I see. The consensus was to include Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs somewhere, but it is completely unclear from the text why this became an election issue. Why? My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the admin who closed the RfC and put his foot down to stop the dithering will explain this to you. I don't have the patience. We've agreed to include it; there's no need to discuss this endlessly. You could have participated in the RfC in the first place, but one person wouldn't have made a difference. I suppose you could unclose the topic at the top of this page and re-start the conversation there if you want.

But for this topic here, I want to focus on the content of the speeches please.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me suggest a slightly different approach than we have had so far. Perhaps you could find, let's say, three strong sources that discuss the content of the speech in the context of the election. Then we can take a quick straw poll to make sure we have consensus for those sources. Then we can work on some wording that summarizes those sources. How does that sound?- MrX 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I already added one from The Guardian and two from The New York Times above, all of which were published in the context of the election. Now, I don't necessarily expect us to reach consensus today (we are all busy in real life). If there is no consensus within a week, another RfC may be in order, as BU Rob13 suggests in the previous topic (before it was closed as I was asked to start a new topic for the content). I do think it would help if we could get more editors than the usual suspects on this talkpage, as shown by the last RfC, which led to consensus for inclusion, but I will let you think about it. Perhaps we will reach consensus quickly this time, as per RS. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty distilling a summary from the NYT articles, but I think it can be found in these paragraphs:

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign declined to release transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street firms during the Democratic primary contests, when her rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, intensely criticized her for accepting roughly $225,000 per speech.

But on Saturday, transcripts of three appearances at Goldman Sachs events were released by WikiLeaks, part of a trove of thousands of emails obtained by hackers who illegally breached the email account of one of Mrs. Clinton’s top aides.
...
Excerpts from some of her speeches had previously been released by WikiLeaks, shortly after a recording surfaced in which her opponent, Donald J. Trump, made crude remarks about women. The Clinton campaign has refused to verify the authenticity of the transcripts, which came from the hacked email account of John D. Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman. The campaign has blamed the Russian government for the hack and WikiLeaks — whose founder, Julian Assange, is a critic of Mrs. Clinton — for releasing the emails in a coordinated effort to help Mr. Trump, a view echoed by the Obama administration.
— New York Times

We could also mention that she "did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation" and that the US has officially accused Russia of hacking to influence the election.- MrX 19:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the main issue is Dodd-Frank. This topic is about her “public and a private position” on financial regulations. It's not about Russia (they've denied it, and so has Trump) or Sanders (who is already included in the article). This is tedious. I'm tired now.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There are two topics coming out of these speech transcripts: financial regulations and open borders. Each time there is a public and private policy position, as per RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

We could create another section about Wikileaks. I guess it's become a campaign issue at this point. But I think that's off topic here. We can start another topic to discuss that. otherwise we'll get confused.Zigzig20s (talk)

WRT private and public policy positions, I believe you're referring to "Citing the back-room deal-making and arm-twisting used by Abraham Lincoln, she mused on the necessity of having “both a public and a private position” on politically contentious issues." You seem to be conflating that and the fact that she is running for president to mean that she has private and public positions, which is not a supported by the sources. In fact, it's a Trump campaign/Breitbart spin that has been refuted by other sources if I recall correctly. I am steadfast in my belief that if mention any Wikileaks material it has to be done in the context of the wantonly illegal actions by Russia to obtain the material. Of course Russia has denied it. It makes no difference whatsoever what Trump thinks of it.- MrX 20:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please read the articles I posted above. I have zero personal opinion whatsoever about HRC. The only thing I care about is policy, and The Guardian and The New York Times suggest she told the American public she was for financial regulations only to tell the opposite to Goldman Sachs. As for the origin of the leaks, we are not the mouthpiece of HRC's campaign. Of course it matters if Russia and Trump deny it, and we should mention that if we are going to bring up Russia. But I think we should simply focus on the content of the transcripts: her policy positions. Besides, come to think of it, if she wants to stop blaming it all on Russia, she is still free to release the full transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are you telling me to read the article. My comments above, including direct quotes from the articles would seem to indicate that I have read the articles. I have.

Assuming that the Wikileaks documents are authentic, her comments to Goldman Sachs three years ago cannot reasonably be interpreted as policy statements nor are they the "opposite" of supporting financial regulation. That seems to be your original research. I decline to argue about Russia's role, and will let other editors comment about the extent to which that material should be included.- MrX 20:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times says she defends Dodd-Frank in front of the American public and dismisses it in front of Goldman Sachs. We had a long discussion about Wikileaks at Talk:Hillary Clinton and some of it would be relevant here. I think it may be easier to split our topic discussions into: 1) financial regulations 2) open borders 3) Wikileaks. Otherwise we'll get confused. I'm out for now.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I see I didn't miss anything while I was out of town for the weekend. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll take another look at some point, but I don't see any cause right now to include anything about the content of the emails, or the speeches, in the campaign article, based on the relative lack of interest by the sources, and the reporting that there was nothing particularly noteworthy to be found. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, opposite views on financial regulations and open borders, depending on US voter v. Wall Street. Lots of RS. Who is the real HRC?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon. The key point here is that while we had a consensus (confirmed by the RfC) that the existence of Wall Street speeches became a campaign issue (largely in the primaries), the actual content of those speeches (and related emails) does not seem to be a campaign issue at all. One could argue it (the content) has led to a few awkward answers from campaign surrogates when quizzed about certain aspects, but there's nothing to suggest in reliable sources that it has become a problem for the campaign. In fact, the media has overwhelmingly focused on the Russian connection to WikiLeaks, rather than the material released. None of that seems to have any relevancy to this article. I get why Zigzig20s wants this stuff in the article, but there's a cast-iron consensus for exclusion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't be the mouthpiece of the HRC campaign though. That would be POV. Who cares what they think? There is enough RS to include this. The Wikileaks controversy is a separate issue from the content of the secret speeches in my view; it should probably be included too, though in a separate section.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

How are "we" being the mouthpiece of the HRC campaign? That's just a ridiculous statement to make, which nobody is going to take seriously. And "the WikiLeaks controversy" really has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. As you say, it is a separate issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure no one here is trying to correct the record. But repeating what the attractive Robby Mook wants us to say (blaming Russia instead of addressing her apparently opposite policy positions on financial regulations and open borders) would make us his mouthpiece, which Misplaced Pages shouldn't be. Now, the Wikileaks stuff happened in the midst of her campaign, with info regarding her campaign, so of course it's relevant to her campaign. There's enough RS for its inclusion, too. There is also the anti-Catholic stuff, which we could include.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's relevant to your interpretation of the campaign. I am wondering if we have a competence issue here. Nor do I see why you called him "the attractive Robby Mook". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not me. Please stop trying to personalize everything. This has nothing to do with me; I am a nobody. It's RS. Are you questioning The Guardian, The New York Times, etc.?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Besides, I see that you've commented on Wikileaks at Talk:Hillary Clinton. So you know many editors believe this is relevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, please, your comments seem to have degenerate to making thinly veiled personal attacks on editors ("I'm sure no one here is trying to correct the record").Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No, there's nothing personal whatsoever about editing Misplaced Pages. Please don't over-interpret and stop trying to personalize everything. I don't have time for this. I can help a little bit with content--that's all I care about--but I am overworked this week. I'd rather you reached consensus for inclusion by yourselves frankly. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if the proposing editor doesn't have time for this, I suggest we mark this discussion closed for lack of consensus / withdrawn. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No, because there are other editors bound interested in this, as per weight of RS. My Gosh. Please stop trying to close topics when you don't like them.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, it looks like it's you versus the rest of the community. All of the other editors in this thread disagree with you, making this a consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not withdrawing it. I just have business meetings to prepare in real life, which take precedence of HRC's campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Lots of editors were interested at Talk:Hillary Clinton. Just leave it open and in the unlikely event that no other editor comments on this, it will get archived by the bot anyway. But I doubt it, given the extent of the RS. A couple of editors actively watching this talkpage don't own it; let the community argue for inclusion. Let us breathe.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't need the only objector to withdraw his/her objection to close. I suggest someone uninvolved close this counterproductive thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No. I suggest you let the community come together and discuss this. There's a reason why we have a bot archiving discussions after a while. We are under no obligation to respond to topics within a couple of hours. We are not on anyone's payroll; we do this as volunteers. Most of us have full-time jobs. Give the community a week at least.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing you would have more luck with your POV pushing if you didn't reply to every single comment. Just a thought. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This is completely NPOV, as per weight of RS. Please assume good faith. When I stopped replying, you wanted to archive it within 40 minutes. This is ridiculous. I am horrified that you're trying to close anything you don't like. We have a bot for a reason. Please let the community breathe.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no deadline. It seems to me that after Sanders' many many calls for Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches, and after the significant media coverage of the public/private dichotomy that this is a relevant encyclopedic issue for the article HRC presidential campaign. I would note that the allegations of Russian influence on Wikileaks are duly noted on the Wikileaks page (which I have edited in order to add comment from an EFF board member critical of mass email hack dumpings). It would seem to me that both sides of the issue should be presented and that this discussion should not be closed. I too am busy, but seeing the same coterie of editors pushing here as elsewhere (cf. Talk:Clinton Foundation) I can only smh that this (in addition to Volunteer Malek's violation of 1RR on the page in question are tolerated by the WMF.SashiRolls (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't blame you for not reading the actual discussion before commenting, given that most of it is a waste of time. Quick summary: There was an RfC to include "Goldman Sachs" et al, language was worked out, consensus was agreed and it was added to the article. This section is about Zigzig20s' obsession with also including the content of the transcripts, for which a strong consensus for exclusion exists because it isn't really relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We are allowed to have a discussion about the content here, whether you like it or not. User:SashiRolls agrees that "the public/private dichotomy is a relevant encyclopedic issue", so your so-called consensus is over. Don't close this. Let us breathe. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And I have zero "obsession" whatsoever. Once again, there is nothing personal about this at all. I only care about relaying content from reliable third-party sources. But this is beside the point. Editors want to discuss this. Let it go and let us breathe. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not the one who called for this section to be closed or archived. I just think you are wrong about it. I have no problem with letting this discussion mature, as long as you give other editors a chance to have their say and stop replying to every single comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what I wanted to do, since I am overworked in real life this week anyway, until y'all threatened to close this topic within 40 minutes.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls, what are you going on about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

this SashiRolls (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow. You've pretty much guaranteed nobody will take you seriously by doing that. Need me to call a whambulance? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon closed this discussion, but I don't think it is an appropriate closure, so I have unclosed it.

It's not appropriate because there is an active discussion going on. The discussion was only 44 hours old, garnering pages and pages of debate from eight editors, the last contribution just 4 hours before the closing. There is plenty of evidence at least one editor has more to say. And maybe there are others who care and haven't had a chance to comment yet. 44 hours is pretty short for some busy people.

The closing statement said, "Closing after no consensus found, without prejudice to any future content proposal on the topic; proposing editor is declining to pursue proposal for now", but that's not a reason to close; A reason to close would be consensus has been reached. Or the topic is dead so new commenters should be warned not to waste their time. If the proposing editor is declining to pursue the proposal for now, and no one else wants to, the discussion will just pause or stop on its own; no closure is needed. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Could somebody please re-close, and can everybody please try to avoid any WP:POINTy process games? Giraffedata and everyone else, if you have a content proposal to make on the subject would you kindly do so in a new section that explains the proposed content change and avoids the above infighting, sniping, and so on? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Before doing so, please review WP:Closing discussions and you will probably reach the conclusion that it is not acceptable to tag this discussion as closed. Closing is a form of weak arbitration where someone, necessarily objective and uninvolved, reviews the discussion and declares that a consensus has been reached and the discussion has served its purpose. We don't have a mechanism on Misplaced Pages for just closing down a discussion because it is stupid or pointless; on the contrary, we never stifle discussion. People who are bored by this thread can just ignore it. If there aren't at least two people who want to discuss, the discussion will just stop on its own. If someone is "discussing" something to the point of being disruptive, the proper procedure is to get a ban of that editor. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not even close to how it works. If you'd like to entertain a meta-discussion of how to deal with talk page disruption there's probably a better place to do it than here, and a better way than jumping into a disruptive discussion to make a WP:POINT. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised to find only a passing mention of her Goldman Sachs speeches in the article. It was a focal issue in the primary campaign which regained prominence upon their release. I've excerpted coverage of just one of her comments from that speech (on Dodd-Frank) from top RS.

The part of her remarks most likely to be politically problematic concern financial industry regulation. In an Oct., 2013, discussion with Tim O'Neill, who is the co-head of investment management at Goldman Sachs, Clinton appears to suggest the impetus for the Dodd–Frank Wall Street reform legislation was at least partially "for political reasons." ... Clinton also said that "there are so many places in the country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations, they're scared of the other shoe dropping." This is far softer language than Clinton uses on the campaign trail. She often praises Dodd-Frank and says she wants it strengthened.

-NPR

Most strikingly, Mrs. Clinton did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation, a major achievement of President Obama and congressional Democrats in the wake of the crisis — and a target of Wall Street lobbying ever since. Instead, Mrs. Clinton suggested that it had been passed for “political reasons” by lawmakers panicked by their angry constituents.

“I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all,” Mrs. Clinton said of the overhaul.

Mrs. Clinton took a far stronger line in public, particularly after she began her second bid for president. In a January 2016 speech in New York, amid her tough primary campaign with Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Clinton vowed to defend the Dodd-Frank Act and expand financial regulation to new territory, such as hedge funds and high-frequency traders.

-NY TImes

In an October 2013 speech to the financial firm, Clinton implied that action was necessary to curb Wall Street street abuses "for political reasons."

-CNN

Clinton claimed the backlash and resentment toward Wall Street was a “misunderstanding” and said banks weren’t performing as well as they could out of fear of regulations. “There are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they’re scared of regulations,” she said. Clinton then said Dodd-Frank was enacted for “political reasons.” Had these speeches been exposed during the Democratic primaries, they would have had severely negative implications, and undermined Clinton’s self-portrayal as a presidential candidate who will rein in Wall Street.

-Observer

Most strikingly, Clinton did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation, a major achievement of President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats in the wake of the crisis — and a target of Wall Street lobbying ever since. Instead, Clinton suggested that it had been passed for “political reasons” by lawmakers panicked by their angry constituents.

-Boston Globe

Are editors honestly suggesting this is non-notable, especially relative to statements like "She criticized Bernie Sanders for calling the Human Rights Campaign 'part of the establishment'" which the article includes? For a politician who hasn't suffered from lack of criticism I have a hard time finding any of it in our article. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It does seem unimportant and without much general interest from mainstream sources or the population as a whole. You have it backwards. If you wish to propose that there is some content to include in the article, would you kindly propose some content and to save a cycle perhaps explain why you consider it justified? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I presented coverage in top RS and your response is "it seems unimportant" ? Well, good on you for having an opinion! I'm not proposing an addition though I believe Zigzig20s was. You're suggesting the discussion should be closed, I'm suggesting it should not be. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not an opinion, a summary take on the sources so far proposed after a number of months watching this unfold. Other editors and I are not inclined to repeat the entire discussion from the starting point every time the same editor makes yet another proposal to include the exact same content. So you're jumping in to thwart other editors as a process game rather than to make a good faith proposal for improving the article? Swell. Welcome to the talk page. Again, I ask others to close yet another train wreck here, and if anybody wants to actually help improve the encyclopedia, please go ahead and propose some content. - Wikidemon (talk)

It's new content. The content of the speeches is new. HRC hid it for over a year despite repeated requests from her opponents and the public at large; we have excerpts now, and as User:James J. Lambden suggests, enough RS to include this. We had to go through the palaver of an RfC to include the mere fact of the speeches in the article, and the overwhelming majority of the community (not the editors on this talkpage) was for inclusion. Do we need to start another RfC to reach consensus for inclusion of the content of the speeches too? Perhaps. What we learned from the previous RfC is that the editors on this talkpage do not necessarily reflect the overwhelming majority of the community. Now, as User:Giraffedata suggests, "It's not appropriate because there is an active discussion going on." and "no closure is needed." If you don't like this topic, nobody is forcing you to keep looking at it. You can "close" it in your head by looking at other pages. But please respect us. We want to discuss the inclusion of content as per weight of RS here, and there is no deadline. Let us breathe. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no active content discussion going on. Or were you lying, or just flopping, when you said you were not going to pursue this discussion because you had better things to do? This is becoming pathological. Please, either make a meaningful content proposal for this article or get off the pot. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't insult me ("lying", "pathological"). Totally unacceptable. The meaningful content proposal started at the very top of this thread with direct quotes about financial regulations from RS; User:James J. Lambden suggested some more; there is no need whatsoever for you to micromanage this. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Let us breathe and work on this as a community.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Your initial proposal was thoroughly rejected yet again as "egregious", "innuendo", and a "hideous misrepresentation", so after bashing the community for a while you said you were withdrawing. Were you telling the truth or not when you said you were going away to deal with work? You keep saying that. This has become a pattern. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I spent some time reading what RS tell about the meaning of leaked emails like this. Here is the problem: this is all too open to different interpretations, mostly about her personal character, and does not include anything outright illegal. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

* Suggestion - This is aimed at Zigzig20s, James J. Lambden et al. Rather than just list quotes from sources and argue about whether or not they can be culled for material, how about making an actual content proposal for us to consider? Submit some actual text with the appropriate references and then try to win a consensus for it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we add a direct quote from The New York Times to avoid Wikidrama, perhaps just, "According to The New York Times, excerpts from her Goldman Sachs speeches showed that, "Mrs. Clinton did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation, a major achievement of President Obama and congressional Democrats in the wake of the crisis — and a target of Wall Street lobbying ever since. Instead, Mrs. Clinton suggested that it had been passed for “political reasons” by lawmakers panicked by their angry constituents.". User:James J. Lambden: What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Any content proposals

Pantsuit Power

Can we fit the below text somewhere in the article?

Thank you, 69.50.70.9 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Choreographers Celia Rowlson-Hall and Crishon Landers with the help of film producer Mia Lidofsky created a flash mob dance video on 2 October 2016 in support of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 set to the music of Can't Stop the Feeling! by Justin Timberlake — with all of the dancers wearing pantsuits in reference to Hillary Clinton's outfit of choice. They called the event #Pantsuitpower Flashmob for Hillary. The video became popular, with coverage in news media including The Washington Post, The Guardian, and Vogue, — and garnering over 2 million views on Facebook. From New York City, the Pantsuit Power movement then spread to Raleigh, North Carolina on 23 October 2016 with another flash mob.

Very interesting, but not really significant enough to be part of the telling of the story of the campaign. Perhaps you could find some other article where the content fits better, or even consider a stand-alone article about this if there is enough sourcing to make it independently notable? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if there's more flash mobs cropping up in multiple groups? You really think it's enough for its own article ? Where else or what other articles could it fit into? 69.50.70.9 (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

1. ^ Kaufman, Sarah L. (7 October 2016), "'Pantsuit Power' flashmob video for Hillary Clinton: Two women, 170 dancers and no police", The Washington Post, retrieved 25 October 2016
2. Moss, Emma-Lee (5 October 2016), "New York flashmob ready to 'dance Hillary Clinton into the White House'", The Guardian, retrieved 25 October 2016
3. Regensdorf, Laura (3 October 2016), "Power Moves in Pantsuits: A Hillary Clinton–Inspired Flash-Mob Dance Party Takes Manhattan", Vogue, retrieved 25 October 2016
4. Quesinberry, Justin (23 October 2016), "'Pantsuit Power' event held for Clinton in Raleigh", WNCN, retrieved 25 October 2016
5. Borlik, Joe (23 October 2016), "Large flash mob dances in downtown Raleigh for Hillary Clinton", WGHP, retrieved 25 October 2016

• Declined, per WP:UNDUE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

New email issue - reversion explanation

I've reverted additions to the article that concern today's letter to Congress from James Comey about emails from Huma Abedin using Weiner's laptop. There's no indication that the matter has become a "campaign issue", and so little information is actually known about the matter it is a textbook example of recentism. Let's monitor the story, and let it develop at Hillary Clinton email controversy. If it becomes a campaign issue, we can revisit the matter with some proposed text on this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose the reversion. The whole campaign is recentist; RS suggest it is a campaign issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised you would have this opinion. While the facts of the matter are backed up by reliable sources, their relevance to the campaign is not. Sources are all now saying the emails are inconsequential, so I was absolutely right to be concerned about recentism. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable third-party sources tend to disagree with your assessment, for example:

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is looking into newly discovered emails linked to Hillary Clinton’s just 11 days before the presidential election, reigniting a massive controversy that has haunted the Clinton campaign for months.".

Revesz, Rachael (October 28, 2016). "FBI in new Hillary Clinton email investigation 11 days before presidential election". The Independent. Retrieved October 29, 2016.

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose reversion this is clearly a big issue, it is blatant chicanery to suggest otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• 74tyhegf, your restoration of the text violates WP:BRD. Please self revert and discuss sensibly, preferably without accusing editors of "blatant chicanery" and focusing on the content. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly a campaign issue, so the wholesale removal of the topic is inappropriate. However, much of the detailed information in the news coverage comes from FBI leaks. This, is, in effect, use of anonymous primary sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You have not answered my point about recentism, which was the basis for the reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Emails Found in Weiner Inquiry Jolt Race" is The New York Times headline. "Recentism" is not a valid reason to revert well-sourced information, ..."up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer." User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think the material should be restored. It is well sourced, it is neutral, it is brief, and the information certainly has become a campaign issue. --MelanieN (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey has not explained how recentism applies. The story is dominating the 24 hour news cycle in the last days of the campaign. Put it back. TFD (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Er... that's a pretty dumb statement. Did you actually read recentism? "Recentism is a phenomenon on Misplaced Pages where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view..." et al. What we have here is an event that just happened and that we know very little about. It is irresponsible to put it into the article, particularly with all sources now suggesting it is a Nothing Burger. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Recentism does not apply here. Comey’s letter has been characterized as historical by most sources and because of the unprecedented release it will surely be noteworthy for many years. Leaving the Email section ending with “The probe was concluded on July 5, 2016, with a recommendation of no charges” is wrong in light of the reopening of the investigation. Calling it a “Nothing Burger” is just wishful thinking among Clinton supporters. I restored the material with reliable source and tagged the section. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable. This is a WP:BRD issue, and just saying "recentism doesn't apply here" doesn't make it so. Reliable sources overwhelmingly state this entire issue has nothing to do with Clinton, unless you count a "six degrees of separation" situation, and Misplaced Pages does not do guilt by association. This is a matter for the Comey article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we have consensus apart from the clinton whipping boy so im going to go ahead and add relevant information. saying "sources" or "reliable sources" back up your point is ridiculous when you dont even provide the sources you are supposedly referring to.

Identification of people

Can anyone identify the people in the images below (they may or may not be notable)? Taken from a Tim Kaine rally in Philadelphia and transferred from Flickr.

Thanks, MB298 (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not what a Misplaced Pages article talk page is for. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 29 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