Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hidden Tempo (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 27 November 2016 (→Clinton Foundation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

[REDACTED]

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

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)

I can sort of see where you are coming from with this, but has it received significant coverage? Apart from the NYT article, I am having a hard time finding anything; therefore, I must conclude it isn't noteworthy enough for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It's received a lot of media, as User:James J. Lambden pointed out earlier.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The phrasing above is acceptable. I think a paraphrase would be better unless that prompts objections. "political reasons" should stay in quotes. I'm somewhat baffled by the no-significant-coverage claim – see my excerpts above which I pared down from a long list of RS. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot support this unnecessary addition that adds nothing to the article. BTW, there is duplicative sourcing in that list ("strikingly..."). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, we've heard you, but we disagree with you as per RS and you don't own this article. Do we need to start an RfC?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with inserting the proposed direct quote of the NYT piece. It sounds informative and fair. — JFG 17:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done with a brief mention in the prose: In October 2016, leaked excerpts from a Goldman Sachs Q&A session cast doubts about her support for the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation., citing the NYT quote for reference. — JFG 23:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Podesta emails

I think this should be included in the "see also" section. Clearly this was a campaign issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably more relevant for the Hillary email article, not this article, because Podesta's emails are not relevant to her campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes they are. This happened during her campaign and it was a major campaign issue, as it included her public/private views on Wall Street regulations, Catholics, the debate questions shared by Donna Brazile, etc...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

His emails were not a major campaign issue. None of what you listed was a major campaign issue. How many hours to go until this is over? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, as per weight of RS. There's no countdown or deadline; this is an encyclopedic article and we must do our best to include all relevant information about the major campaign issues.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

But this wasn't relevant to the campaign, and no post-election analysis will change that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was, as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a proper use of a "see also"link. If it's relevant and of due weight, then the issue should be mentioned somewhere in the article, and the wikilink would appear there. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't it a proper use of "see also" link?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Something caused Clinton's support to weaken before the election. Prime suspects are disclosure of continued FBI investigation of her emails and the flood of emails from Democratic operatives published on Wikileaks. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Some post-mortem analysis indicates that her support was already weak, but was not noticed because the polling was grossly inaccurate. TweedVest (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It was more likely a problem in estimating likely voters in different demographic groups, and overestimation of Clinton's support among minorities. TFD (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The media is flogging themselves over failing to report the forest of Trump signs in flyover country. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Where I live, in a fairly rural area, Trump signs and bumper stickers were all over the place. I don't know how they run these polls nowdays, but if they are still doing it in person, that means they're probably only polling in cities. I guess that's why the results of the actual election were so unexpected. (I voted for Trump anyway... 😉) I'd support putting the email stuff in the see also, because it was relevant to this election and Clinton's campaign. White Arabian Filly 21:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Not having a single mention of Wikileaks or the Podesta Emails is inexcusable. It should be noted that this page and other pages related to Hillary Clinton are infested with far-left activist editors, anxious to scrub any hint of scandal from her articles. Any volunteers to begin adding this material? Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this a Misplaced Pages talk page or a forum? These edits are way out of line. Objective3000 (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Post-mortem analysis of Clinton's defeat

I suspect the media will engage in some analysis of why Clinton was defeated, perhaps for years. We should probably keep this page updated as they occur. By the way, I'm surprised to see that it mentions in the article that she lost the election last night. Shouldn't we keep reverting people who try to add it while we argue over the "appropriate wording" on this page? I mean, we need to follow the Misplaced Pages way, don't we? TweedVest (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: On Nov 12, 2016, this user was "indefinitely topic banned from all pages (including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and Misplaced Pages pages) related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed." Time to collapse this section again? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well she lost. Theres no second prize. SaintAviator lets talk 23:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The remedy applied to this article of allowing biased editors to revert then argue us all to death on the talk page worked very poorly. I don't think reverting the result of the election will work, however. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. She lost. Get over it.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Lets. And also see how many of you go on to productively edit articles that are not related to this election. I'm betting few but hoping all. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a point to this thread? Discuss improvements to the article only, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the point is trolling for which the OP has been warned repeatedly. They will be blocked eventually.- MrX 13:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the article is extremely poor, nearly to the point it could be nominated for deletion. It needs to be extensively revised to include the information which was excluded and incorporate appropriate post-election analysis. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

'Revised'. Teehee. That won't be happening for quite some time, not with this climate, unfortunately. Dschslavaparlez moi 21:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to use "Timeline" articles for ongoing news stories because while we can know what is significant in today's newspapers, we cannot know what will be important when the event is over. There are also many things that happened behind the scenes that were not published at the time. TFD (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I note by the way we had a lengthy discussion about a one-sentence addition to mention that Comey had resumed the investigation. Lots of editors argued that it was irrelevant to the topic, but now Clinton is blaming it for her loss. TFD (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral language

"was the second time Hillary Clinton failed to become President" There's no such sentence in Mitt Romney's Campaign article. Can we reword this to Hillary Clinton's second attempt to become President? As it's the first line it's embarrassing for Misplaced Pages's neutrality for this to appear on the Google listing for this page.86.160.8.207 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I removed that clause. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

She failed again, it should be in. What does Marek think? SaintAviator lets talk 00:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Fix is better. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"failed to become President" is terrible wording. It's not like she was a caterpillar trying to turn into a butterfly.- MrX 14:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yugge failure, let WP neutrally say this. SaintAviator lets talk 22:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Yuge failure" - oh, I don't know. I just updated the popular vote numbers to the current NY Times total (numbers may change again because of Michigan and New Hampshire). Winning the popular vote by more than half a million votes does not sound like a failure to me. Sounds more like changes to the electoral college system are needed - the other candidate would be shouting "rigged" right about now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The electoral college system is an historical relic and probably makes no sense today. However, it is mere speculation whether Clinton would have won the popular vote had there been no electoral college. Both Trump and Clinton would have devoted resources to both deep red and deep blue states, rather than New Hampshire and Maine's second district. TFD (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Yugge. She didnt win any states in South and lost the Midwest, Yugge. SaintAviator lets talk 20:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Email controversy

• I left the factual part of user Fred Bauder's sentence, but removed the non-neutral POV which doesn’t reflect the source. The source saying "letters about her email arrangement" is a pretty far cry from "Director of the FBI repeatedly calling the attention of the public to the email scandal".

IMO it’s too early to add an analysis of the election outcome. Comey’s letters days before the election will probably feature prominently, but so will the interference by the FBI/Giuliani connection and the months of unrelenting media coverage of email practices that were not illegal and did not reveal any scandals. Here’s an early analysis from the day after; you don’t see the word bullpucky (I'm substituting the euphemism) in headlines every day. And the parties involved in the election on either side may not the best sources for an unbiased evaluation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD

For your consideration, I give you Never Hillary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks

References

What's with the lengthy direct quotes in the references list? They might be justified if the reference is something you cannot look up online yourself, but that doesn't seem to be case for any of them. If the editors who added the quotes are trying to prove a point, shouldn't that be addressed on this Talk page? Specifically, User JFG has just reinserted the comparison with the Romney 47% remark - which has received exactly zero coverage in the news lately, so nothing's changed - and added a lengthy direct quote from each of the original references from September. In terms of this election, that's B.C.! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I added the quotes following incorrect assertions on the Talk page that the cited articles didn't support the comparison sentence. I agree they are not necessary in the article, provided editors don't restart the debate on whether this comparison was covered in RS. I'm happy for you to remove the quotes. To your other point, the 47% comparison has received recent coverage in various RS summarizing the key moments of the campaign (that's what some people in the talk page discussion were asking for) but I didn't want to pile on an already WP:OVERCITED paragraph. Finally, most quotes are from September because that's when the incident happened… — JFG 08:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The currently listed references don't support your conclusion - see lengthy prior discussions. Please remove them and provide your new reliable sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation

"Worst loss since 1988"?

Clinton Foundation

Rather than having unproductive discussions it would be well to close the RfC that was likewise the object of much unproductive name-calling brought about by many of the same editors, but yet nonetheless resulted in a call for inclusion of information on the Caracol Industrial Park on the Talk:Clinton Foundation page some time ago. Strangely, no admin ever bothered to count the "votes" and note that one side consistently worked while the other always begged off when confronted with reliably sourced evidence... Any of the admins watching over this thread want to close that RfC? Thanks!SashiRolls (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be wise for someone to open an RFC about the alleged Clinton Foundation scandals. I believe it will have a fair chance of passing and eventually quell excessive dispute on the topic.--IntelligentName (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you IntelligentName. I agree wholeheartedly and support taking another look at this heavily reported and significant aspect of Clinton's 2016 campaign. All disagreement for its inclusion should be voiced in the RfC. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

We already had an RfC over this, and the policy-based arguments clearly showed how inappropriate it was to include such material. There isn't a scintilla of proof that the activities of the Clinton Foundation in Haiti had any impact on the campaign. In fact, there hasn't actually been any public statement that the Clinton Foundation did anything wrong in Haiti at all. I understand some people on the extreme right like to label anything related to the Clinton Foundation, or emails, or Benghazi, or as "scandals", but there's never really been any evidence to support those labels. And yet again, I must insist that instead of just nebulously insisting your favorite fauxtroversy should be included, suggest some actual text and let editors weigh in on it. We have dozens of editors here and we don't need yet another RfC unless meaningful discussion has completely stalled. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with the ad hominem and extraneous name-calling, viz. extreme Right, fauxtroversy, (nowiki)insert myriad Nothing Burgers over the last thirty years here(/nowiki). My request that an administrator formally close the RfC at Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park remains open. Researchers reading this thread in 2020 can observe this and draw the conclusions they deem appropriate. SashiRolls (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what an ad hominem is? National politicking has been at a very low level this year, and the political pages on Misplaced Pages have seen countless problematic editors as in past election cycles who, among other things, want to cover the political games in Misplaced Pages's voice as if they are real. There is nothing ad hominem about that. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Well said, SashiRolls. Some of the rhetoric used by a faction of editors here is offensive and at times, utterly disgusting. The WP:OWN violations are overwhelming. Nobody gets to unilaterally determine what does or doesn't qualify as the old cliche "nothing burger," and whoever is under this impression is very much mistaken. This tactic of "agree with me, or we'll shout you down and/or call you a until you give up" is frighteningly reminiscent of what we saw throughout this election cycle. Many are not interested in having a debate, but instead attempt to cancel the debate before it even begins. There's just no place for that here on this project. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Like SCJessey said: stop complaining about other editors and let's hear what you actually want the article to say. Come up with proposed text that you believe is adequately sourced and neutral, and then we can talk. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Talking of which, if you, as an administrator who has not been involved on the Clinton Foundation (or at least not much), would like to close an RfC for history's sake, and to show that you are neutral enough to accept adding adequately sourced, neutral material, I'd be much obliged. I gather you're one of the newest admins? You got the p-o-w-e-r! :)SashiRolls (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I consider myself WP:INVOLVED at all articles relating to Trump or Clinton. In other words, thanks for the suggestion, but I won't be closing any controversial discussions here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Too bad, I've seen you be pretty neutral. SashiRolls (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That's my goal. But I'm here as an ordinary editor; I don't intend to act as an admin. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This is actually the first time that I've been invited to propose an addition to this article. All my attempts to open a RfC regarding this were immediately dismissed as "POV," "nonsense," and "fauxtroversies" So thanks for that. The Foundation story is such a far-reaching and complex web of multiple issues and perspectives, but here is a (very rough) skeleton of something we could put in a new "Clinton Foundation" subsection under "Controversies" (EDITED 11/26):

In February of 2015, ABC News reported that one of the Clinton Foundation's largest donors, Raj Fernando, was placed into a high-level role at the State Department. This appointment was made directly by the then-Secretary of State Clinton. The Atlantic described Mr. Fernando as "significantly less qualified" than his peers, and he resigned soon after the ABC story was published. The Clinton Foundation also came under scrutiny after the Washington Post revealed that Clinton had accepted numerous donations from foreign governments on behalf of the foundation, including a donation from Algeria, violating her ethics agreement with the Obama administration made prior to accepting her appointment as Secretary of State. The Post claimed this donation was especially problematic, as there was a "spike" in Algerian lobbying efforts regarding their questionable human rights record.

In August of 2016, the Associated Press reported that 85 of 154 private interest groups and individuals had collectively donated $156 million to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary Clinton headed the State Department. The AP referred to the discovery as " perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton." Clinton's camp referred to the AP story as "flawed" and "outrageous," while Trump said that the revelation was evidence that "that the Clintons set up a business to profit from public office." Clinton's primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, stated that he had a "problem" with a sitting Secretary of State accepting foreign donations to her foundation, apparently citing a conflict of interest.

The Wall Street Journal reported in October of 2016 that the FBI was currently in the midst of a public corruption investigation regarding the Clinton Foundation and alleged "financial crimes" and "influence-peddling." Left-leaning blog The Huffington Post reported that the FBI was largely basing its investigation on the book Clinton Cash, written by conservative author and Breitbart contributor Peter Schweizer.

1. Mosk, Matthew (10 June 2016). "How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board". ABC News. Retrieved 27 November 2016.
2. Graham, David. "From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer", The Atlantic (September 2, 2016): "She also said she was unaware of the requirement that she turn over her emails when she left office, which she said might be due in part to a concussion she suffered in 2012...."
3. Sanchez, Raf (February 26, 2015). "Clinton Foundation admits breaking ethical rules by taking money from Algeria". The Telegraph.
4. Braun, Stephen (23 August 2016). "Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State". Associated Press. Retrieved 27 November 2016.
5. Barrett, Devlin (30 October 2016). "FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 27 November 2016.
6. Linkins, Jason (2 November 2016). "FBI Reportedly Basing Clinton Foundation Investigation On 'Clinton Cash' Book". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 27 November 2016.

Again, this is very rough and a preliminary version. The redirect in the template to the Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy page goes into much greater detail, but I believe this is about on par with the Benghazi controversy and Email controversy sections. The Wikileaks controversy/information could go in another separate section. What do we think about this? @MelanieN @SashiRolls IntelligentName @JFG Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced. What sources are you planning to use, and where will they be inserted, to verify what facts? Also undue in size. Trim it to about a third of what you have, add sources, and we'll talk.--MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN I added the citations, and removed a bit from Trump's reaction to the reports. It's about the same length as the email controversy and Benghazi sections now, and it's arguably at least equal in size (in terms of media coverage and legal implications) to both of those controversies. This is bare bones...do you see anything that's not worth a mention? Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This proposal is so far from acceptable it is hard to know where to begin. In the context of the election campaign, the gist of the content if any would be that opponents of Clinton raised the Foundation as an election issue, accusing it of being pay-to-play, although no evidence of that accuastion ever came to light. Describing the foundation, in Misplaced Pages's voice, as potentially corrupt, or covering the AP story without debunking it, is unwarranted and POV. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing to be "debunked." These are all facts backed by reliable sources. The evidence of the accusations lie within the sources: big donors receiving access to Bill and Hillary, donations from foreign governments (which she admitted were ethics violations), and the FBI agrees that there is enough here to launch a public corruption probe. Nobody is accusing Hillary of any wrongdoing. These are only allegations (as stated), and posed a huge problem for the Clinton campaign team. We learned this from the Podesta emails, in which the team expressed concerns of Chelsea Clinton's inappropriate use of Foundation funds to pay for her rent and her wedding, Qatar receiving 5 minutes of Bill Clinton's time in exchange for $1 million donated to the Foundation, and the phrase "Bill Clinton, Inc." was used. I offered this only as a draft. I welcome all good faith proposals to improve on this draft. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The AP story was debunked, and we can describe it as misleading in Misplaced Pages's voice. Whether we should bring up a debunked news story as relevant to the campaign is another issue. Likely not, as the whole issue is not of enough importance to the campaign that we should go over any false allegations and faulty news sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The implications don't match the sources. The text points to sources to suggest wrongdoing when the sources themselves say things like "much ado about nothing." There is no there there. Objective3000 (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no there, there....that sounds so familiar. Oh, right, I know who else described a Hillary controversy using that phrase. But anyway, did you have anything specific to point out that doesn't match up? Or would you rather propose a revised version? Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It should sound familiar -- it dates back to 1937. You continue with snide remarks and improper suggestions about other editors. Objective3000 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm just teasing you, man. Trying to keep it lighthearted. But seriously, instead of quoting the DNC chair's response to controversies, can you point out specific examples where the proposed text doesn't match the sources? Or would your rather contribute a revised version to help advance this process? Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I did NOT quote the DNC Chairman and had no idea that she used the quote. Hardly surprising as it is so apt. You must stop the accusations against other editors, and claims that they are either paid or influenced by the DNC. Nearly every edit contains such. Attempting any discussion with you is utterly unproductive, as is this entire section. Objective3000 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. We got you on record. You didn't mean to quote the DNC chair, you're not influenced by the DNC, and you're not paid by the DNC. If you deem this section to be too unproductive for you, we are going to move on without you before this thing gets derailed into yet another stream of personal attacks. No harm, no foul, no victims. Thank you for the input. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of Logo

Just curious, why was the logo in the infobox reverted to the older one with the red arrow? The blue arrow logo was used much more frequently in the general election, and I just figured that would be the one to stay on the article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I am with you on this. The light blue/dark blue logo was by far the most common of the species. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

What is encyclopaedic information on electoral results?

I must admit to being perplexed as to why certain editors are opposed to stating that the electoral college vote was the widest margin for a Democratic loss in 28 years, especially given that there was such a large difference in the popular vote (the widest margin by which a losing candidate has won the popular vote in history). These are facts, both of which have their importance, and both of which, it seems to RS, made this campaign remarkable. I notice that the reversions have taken place without any discussion on the talk page, so I thought it might be helpful to open a section on the talk page to present the arguments for or against including these two pieces of statistical information. Anyone want to discuss the question or are we going to remain in a BR...BR...BR cycle? SashiRolls (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from with this, but to my mind there are three reasons for exclusion:

1. The Electoral College has not yet voted, so it would be a bit early to talk about that.
2. Vote counting is still going on, including a possible recount in Wisconsin. So again, a bit too early.
3. The "widest" margin for 28 years is a meaningless statistic, since there are only two other Democratic losses in the interim.

And to be honest, wide margins in the Electoral College are pretty common in the electoral history, and narrow margins are a bit unusual. In fact, this election ranks in the top ten narrowest Electoral College margins of the last 100 years. In the 14 elections we've had with 538 electors, Trump has the fifth narrowest margin of victory (assuming the current numbers hold). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A bit off focus, but I don't really see an obvious reason why we should have two separate stubby sections on each individual article, rather than simply linking to the section on the main election, which is probably a good B class article in its own right if it were spun off. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. SashiRolls (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No reason why this piece of trivia is significant. As Scjessey points out, there were 4 Democratic victories in the last 28 years. If we go back another 8 years, it is the third largest loss (out of 6 losses), which makes it look average. Or we could say it was the third largest loss since 1956 (60 years), which makes Clinton's performance look good. The reality is that since 2000, electoral college results have been close, as both parties now have a lock on most states and compete in a small number of "swing" states. There was never any possibility that 1964 or 1972 could be repeated. TFD (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is precisely why it's (somewhat) interesting. I can't get over the minimal margin in Minnesota (when's the last time that happened I wonder?); and remain surprised by Wisconsin & Michigan (Bernie country I guess). I'm sure Michael Moore or someone has said something about this aspect of the 2016 HRC campaign, no? ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat interesting statistic sounds a lot like WP:TRIVIA. TimothyJosephWood 17:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec) As I said in the closed discussion just above this one, this is a ridiculous statistic. It compares this election to six previous ones, four of which were WON by the Democrat, so all it really says is "this was a worse loss for the Democrat than 2000 or 2004." Basically it compares this election to a cherry-picked group of previous elections, so as to come up with something significant-sounding. We could use the more-meaningful statistics quoted by Scjessey, or the cherry-picked statistics cited by TFD, but I don't think we should do that either. Anyhow, Reliable Sources are not reporting or commenting on this (it was mentioned in passing at the very end of the cited ABC report, and no other source picked up on it), so there is no justification for us to include it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. As for whether we are "going to remain in a BR...BR...BR cycle" - no, we're not. This article is subject to Discretionary Sanctions and it must not be re-added without consensus. All three insertions of this material were by User:ThaiWanIII, and I have warned/explained the rules to them on their talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

And I would suggest that finding RS on regional movements and posting a colorful map such as the one at 270towin, maybe even finding really RS talking about LaFolette in 1924 and Teddy in 12 just might be interesting. Agree that statistics are (mostly) trivia. OR: Gore had a similarly narrow win in 2000 in Minnesota, but to find a narrower win you have to go back to Mondale in 1984. SashiRolls (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Election results

I accidentally clicked on Save before I was finished with the edit summary. I meant to say that the map I removed can be found at United States presidential election, 2016 along with a number of other colorful, but IMO equally meaningless graphs. What is the point of comparing the percentage of votes for a candidate in, for example and using the most extreme example possible, Los Angeles county with a population of around 10,000,000 with Loving County, TX, population around 82, where Clinton received 6.3% of the vote (4 voters out of a total of 64)? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, and I added the legend to the map without seeing you had commented here. Feel free to add a map you like better. I agree that a meaningful map would somehow show county by county whether it was "carried by" abstentions, Trump or Clinton. That would be a meaningful, if unconventional, map. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I doubt if most county registrars have a way of tallying "abstentions". --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

With or without the legend, the map is misleading. Depicting voting results on geographical maps distorts the results because areas that are large in territory but sparsely populated are represented disproportionally. 13 million voters in Los Angeles County are represented by a small dark blue speck on the map, 4 million voters in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, both Dakotas, and Nebraska by at least 20% of the territory of the continuous US. On the geographical map, LA County fits - with room to spare - into an area approximately the size of Sublette County, Wyoming, population 10,000. I’ve seen population-adjusted cartograms, but I don’t see what any map could add to the paragraph that isn’t already expressed by the text and numbers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I just found a 3d map, probably copyrighted, to illustrate what I've been trying to say. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The state-by-state map does have some validity, because our elections are conducted by state. The county-by-county map accomplishes nothing except to give a weirdly distorted and ultimately meaningless view of the results. We do vote by state; we do not vote by acreage. I think we should keep the state map and remove the county map. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I really don't care whether this map stays or goes, however it is neither misleading nor invalid. It does what it says it does, shows county by county results, which -- as it happens -- show that HRC did well in big cities (and in the "black belt" and along the border, and on the coasts, near the border between the Dakotas, etc., ) SashiRolls (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with @SashiRolls here, and also agree that the 3D map is beautiful, @Space4Time3Continuum2x. It provides a nice look at how each area of the country voted, and gives insight into how different areas of each state had starkly different voting patterns. If possible, it would be great to find a place for that in the article somewhere. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I propose removing the state map as well. I checked on its provenience and couldn’t find the source of the info (other than the outlines of the states), who color-coded the map, and what the different shades mean. Why are there three shades of blue, but four shades of red? Wyoming, for example, is singled out by a very bright red, but according to Cook Political Report editor David Wasserman’s 2016 National Popular Vote Tracker Trump received "only" 68.2 percent of the votes there compared to his 68.6% in West Virginia. One more 3d map that we probably can’t use: 3d. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Analysis of Loss

I notice that the same tendency is still prevalent on this page to delete anything that is not part of the official HRC approved story of why she lost: sexism, racism, Bernie Bros, HRC's right wing conspiracy theory, etc. I notice that nowhere on this page is there any mention of the super predator comments which led to a book being published and run serially in the Jacobin in the weeks prior to the election (Super Predator: Bill Clinton's Use and Abuse of Black America) , , , etc. No mention of the Clinton Foundation scandal (not even the 'Vox' article claiming that the scandal was "bullshit" as one of our WP:GRYPHONs likes to claim, cf. , Explaining it all to you: The Persistence of Vox); no mention of the mainstream media pundits' utter failure to cover what was really happening; no mention of the collateral damage of the various smear campaign strategies that backfired; no mention of the Standing Rock Sioux protesting outside her office in Brooklyn or the criticism from Bill McKibbon in the LA Times concerning her ignoring DAPL... It's as if the same pundits who steered us wrong during the election -- by telling us what was or wasn't a "nothing burger" -- don't want anyone to know why their strategy mirrored the losing strategy of the campaign... SashiRolls (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

See also the 7 articles from the WP:MAINSTREAM press on the Clinton's role in Haiti collected by the Brooklyn based Haitian Times (back in March already...).

ps: WP:MAINSTREAM is an essay, not a policy: it was a failed proposal.SashiRolls (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

1.) These are terrible sources. 2.) This section begins with a broad-based attack against the editors here. A continuation of personal attacks from two editors, one from the far-right and one apparently from the far-left, attacking anyone editing in a neutral manner. Objective3000 (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry these sources "terrorize" you. It's also strange that you call articles in Huffington Post, Politico, NY Times, etc. etc. far-left or far-right sources (cf. 7 articles collected in Haitian Times which you obviously haven't had the time to read...) Misplaced Pages will need to grow up in the future and realize that opinion is no longer owned by corporate media and that younger people have learned to get their news elsewhere... and so the reliability of sources is no longer going to be confirmed by billionaires owning the media source (or foundations like the CF having members on the board as in the case of the Daily Beast) ... SashiRolls (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

RS is based on what WP:RSN says it's based on, not some set of amorphous "younger people." You can get your news wherever you want. But, for Misplaced Pages purposes, it comes from WP:RS. And please stop with the personal attacks. You are "terrorizing" no one here. Objective3000 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to reader: the above comment contains the word "you" in every sentence and so is not addressed to you, the reader, but to me, a dissenter. SashiRolls (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Another book that Clinton could have dealt with more deftly:  The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, by Michelle Alexander (cf. The Nation) ps The Nation, Jacobin, are also RS, as is the widely-discussed Alexander book. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not a helpful suggestion. Please do not begin by posing conspiracy theories about Misplaced Pages editors. Regarding election analysis, because the election was very close one can cherry pick almost any factor, whether supported, speculative, or pure fantasy, and make a plausible argument that it led to the loss. A lot of sources do this, and they are all fairly useless for that reason. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am saying. I am not proposing a conspiracy theory, but an evolution in what Misplaced Pages understands as sources that people consider reliable. (The proliferation of small presses is a result of the fact that only billionaires can really own big ones since -- at least for print sources -- ownership involves losing money)... (these are just facts, eh? at least in France, not one daily print newspaper is profitable, and the owners are, as a consequence, those who can afford to lose money to advance their views.) What makes a media source earn money? Media circuses... SashiRolls (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. SashiRolls, a suggestion. It appears that you are continuing the behavior that I believe got you TBanned at Jill Stein and related articles. I would be careful as this could be considered a related article, particularly since you brought up, and had removed, comments re Brexit on both. Objective3000 (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The critical reader may note that once again, there is no content discussion in the previous paragraph, contrary to the many content proposals and policy evolution proposals to reflect new realities made above. SashiRolls (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

These snide remarks through the Fourth wall are not conducive to discussion. And if you believe that activist websites should replace newspapers as RS, then take it to WP:RSN. Objective3000 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The remarks are not meant to be snide. I have no problem with you, except insofar as you seem to reject without reading or listening. As for WP:RSN I'm pretty sure you'll find my name in the edit history of that page. You might even find me being thanked once or twice (which is always pleasant). I think that the discussion on bigbro Jimbo's page (diff) concerning orthodoxy (right-opinion) may be of interest to those hoping that[REDACTED] will never become orthodoxopaedic. SashiRolls (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

With the changes in American journalism and media in the 16-odd years since Misplaced Pages's founding, and the 12 years of the WP:RS guideline, there is a point to be made that the English Misplaced Pages's distinction of sources as reliable or not reliable, and between mainstream and niche, may no longer reflect encyclopedic reality. Even the most centrist, popular, websites like CNN that fit RS to a T can fly off the rails in their political coverage. However, neither this article nor RS are the places where that will be resolved. Jimbo's talk page is a village square for some, but it is a long way from there to a seismic shift in sourcing policy. Michael Moore and other activists (proposed here as sources for his analysis of Clinton's defeat), editorials, original research, personal opinion and advocacy all have a place in political discourse, but as an encyclopedia we simply have no good way to filter the valuable from the useless (or worse), and no mechanism to reach consensus on it. As such, RS is what we're stuck with unless we as a community come up with something better. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:18, 27 November 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