Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Clinton Foundation

Whether he is a right-wing commentator or not has nothing to do with anything. Half of the sources on here are from left-leaning commentators. Either way, it is still a news outlet and the question is a valid one. NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

An opinion piece by a right-wing commentator and convicted felon(as his article states) is very different than a news story. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is a consensus that Dinesh d'Souza's opinion belongs in this biography, it must be described as what it his — the opinion of a right-wing political commentator, as per the guideline on opinionated sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It is still information, and just because it comes from a right-wing commentator, does not make it any less valid than news that comes from a left-wing commentator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that Dinesh d'Souza's opinion is not an unchallenged opinion, much less a majority opinion. Framing the opinion of a single right-wing political commentator as if it is the undisputed conclusion of multiple "news outlets" is highly misleading and an improper use of the cited source. His POV, if we come to the consensus that it should be included, must be attributed as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I suggest that before jumping into controversial articles about political figures you hold strong personal opinions about, you take some time to review our policies and guidelines on content and sourcing, particularly WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, the source I provided isn't to prove that the information is valid or invalid, it is simply to show that there are news outlets questioning that aspect of the Clinton Foundation, therefore I don't think it really matters whether the guy is right-wing or left-wing. The point is simply that Hillary has taken criticism for possibly using the Clinton Foundation to increase her own wealth. I would argue that this isn't even a controversial point because it clearly states that she has made millions of dollars for giving paid speeches on behalf of the foundation. NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

No, there aren't "news outlets questioning that aspect of the Clinton Foundation," at least not according to the source you provided. All that you have shown with that source is that precisely one right-wing political commentator with a long-standing and overt anti-Clinton bias has made that accusation in an opinion column published in an overtly-conservative publication. This may very well be notable enough to include in the biography; I could be convinced either way. But if it was to be included, it must be presented as what it is — the attributed personal opinion of Dinesh d'Souza, as required by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

So does that mean you would be fine with the change if I referenced three, or more, other sources as well? NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see above. Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution, and the claim that Hillary "used the Clinton Foundation to increase her own wealth" is quite clearly a biased statement of opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I just showed you that it already says in the article that CLinton used the foundation to increase her own wealth by giving speeches on behalf of the foundation. There is nothing partisan about it. NationalInterest16 (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That isn't at all what the article says; it says she made unpaid speeches on behalf of the foundation and made other, paid speeches. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations from a charlatan like Dinesh d'Souza and other "political opponents" (as someone just edited into the article) do not belong in the article. Should we perhaps also add to her personal life that her political opponents have alleged that she's been unfaithful with her husband, seeing as how we're going to lend credence to conspiracy theories and falsehoods just because they can be attributed to someone? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

They belong in the article, but not as being reported as fact in Wikipedia's voice. These highly partisan claims are part of the mud being slung at Clinton, and are notable as such. We can use a partisan source to support that this partisan claim was made (one of the few cases in which we can use a primary source), but we must clearly identify this as a partisan claim. Let's see if we can get a better source than the National Review. -- The Anome (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I would also note that the article in question doesn't really actually accuse Hillary of any wrongdoing. I read the whole thing; it flings a lot of mud at various people or things attached to or allegedly connected to the foundation in various ways, but nowhere does it directly accuse Hillary of specific wrongdoing or "increasing her own wealth." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. You're right: the cited article never directly makes that accusation, but instead, as you say, throws mud in all directions. Then I agree with you: the sentence should remain struck from the article. -- The Anome (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If slander is to be included (which I don't think it should even if it can be attributed to someone), it needs to be noted that RS find no evidence for the allegations. The allegations should therefore be phrased along the lines of "political opponents have accused her, without any evidence, of...". PolitiFact: "There is no evidence that money given to the Clinton Foundation has made its way into the Clintons’ pockets."[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans There is a whole section on the Trump page alleging he has been unfaithful and made advances on married women. I also find it highly rich that there needs to be a better source than the National Review, when sources like the Washington Post, New York Post, and New York Times, are perfectly fine as sources. I would also note that this is one single instance where you are requiring that it be marked as partisan, while ignoring other blatantly partisan sources. NationalInterest16 (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If we can find WP:RS directly reporting that Clinton's opponents are accusing her of self-enrichment from the Foundation, we can report this claim as a partisan claim being thrown at her by opponents, in exactly the same way as the claims being thrown at Trump, without taking a stance on the actual truth or otherwise of that claim. However, NorthBySouthBaranof is right in this case; D'Souza never directly makes that claim, so his article cannot be quoted as a source for that claim. -- The Anome (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If we want to include discussion of the partisan claim that the Clintons have gotten rich from their foundation, this Washington Post Fact Checker article would be a good place to start; it presents the partisan claim but notes that there is no evidence that the claim is true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest, based on this source and PolitiFact, "Some political opponents of Clinton, including a pro-Donald Trump super PAC, have alleged that Clinton has used the foundation to enrich herself; however, The Washington Post and PolitiFact investigated the charges and found no evidence to support the claim." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point about The Washington Post being perfectly fine, but National Review is not. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

From some distance away, let me say that indeed, the Washington Post is generally regarded as one of the foremost and most respected news outlets in the US, while the National Review is something very few people outside the US have ever heard about. And that is not just my opinion, - the Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes, the Review, as fas as I can figure out, none. The Post may lean slightly to the left from a US perspective, but then reality has a well-known liberal bias. From an international perspective, the US mainstream is way on the right on most issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, you should actually read the National Review article you linked. Nowhere in the text does it state that Hillary Clinton "increased her wealth from the foundation." It does not say what you are claiming it says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is another source that is more direct about the claims. http://fortune.com/2016/08/27/clinton-foundation-health-work/ NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What from that source would you like to include? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit shorter: "Some political opponents of Clinton have alleged that Clinton used the foundation to enrich herself. The Washington Post and PolitiFact investigated this claim, and found no evidence to support it." -- the more general claim includes the specific. We should also avoid the word "however". And of course we need WP:RS cites for both the accusation itself being made, and the WaPo and PolitiFact investigations. -- The Anome (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Both PolitiFact and the Post are blatantly left-wing news organizations. If you want to add in the part that they investigated the claim and found no evidence, then you should also add in there that they are left-leaning sources. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think clearly identifying PolitiFact and the Post as the sources will suffice. I would also disagree with your assessment of their being partisan; they are both generally regarded as being neutral in their reporting.-- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, good call, the "however" can suggest something that isn't there. The cites are here and here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I propose that we make the edit suggested above, based on NPOV and rough consensus. Does anyone disagree with this, and if so, do they have a better edit they can propose? -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. Both the Post and PolitiFact lean heavily to the left. Just a few comments ago, everyone was busy throwing policies at me about having to identify partisan sources. Now when the shoe in on the other foot, you don't want to do it. This seems highly biased to me. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Counterpunch, Alternet, and The Nation are examples of "left-wing publications". Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, and the Free Republic are examples of "right-wing publications". The Washington Post and Politifact are not left-wing or right-wing, although arguably the editorial board of the Washington Post is at least left-leaning (in the same way that, say, the news room in Fox News is right-leaning). Being left or right leaning is not a basis to reject a publication from a respected news outlet like the Post, Fox, or Politifact (a Pulitzer Prize winner). News sources like these are generally reliable for factual matters. However, "blatantly left-wing" or "blatantly right-wing" sites are often too biased to be useful in an encyclopedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide WP:RS for the Post and PolitiFact being left-leaning, from anything other than right-wing sources? -- The Anome (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have a better edit. "Some political opponents of CLinton have alleged that CLinton used the foundation enrich herself." Then use the sources I provided, as well as the Post and PolitiFact and let people make up there own minds, rather than telling them what to believe. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is one https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/ 10:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationalInterest16 (talk • contribs)

That only tells half the story. As per your cite, I'm now happy to describe the Post as "left-leaning", as this seems to be general opinion. However, the only descriptions of PolitiFact being left-leaning seem to come from overtly right-wing sources. -- The Anome (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That cite discusses research on the audiences of the sites, not on any analysis of the content of the sites in question. It says that the readership of the Post skews left, not that the reporting does. Pew has basically taken the average viewer/consumer of all of these media outlets and plotted them on a continuum, trying to ascertain which outlets are favored by which side of the political spectrum. That the Washington Post is read by more liberals than conservatives is interesting, but not relevant here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I could provide a list of about 30 different organizations that describe PolitiFact as "left-leaning" while there isn't a single one that suggests PolitiFact leans to the right. Although, most of these sources are indeed right-leaning, I would suggest that the shear number that say PolitiFact leans left, would prove my point that many, many people believe PolitiFact is biased. This is why I suggest including all four sources and letting people make there own decisions as to which they should believe. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just done some Googling, so I can see what you mean. However, relative to the sources I see weighing in against PolitiFact, consensus reality is left-leaning. -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it is based off of audience data. Statistics prove that Liberals read left-leaning news, and Conservatives read right-leaning news. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a very interesting opinion you have there, but it's not supported by the source you provided. Care to try again? You have a source which says more liberals than conservatives read the Washington Post. That does not in any way, shape or form support a claim, much less prove, that the content of the Post is politically biased in any significant way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I would have thought that it was obvious, but I guess not. I find this amusing that some people seem to be under the impression that the News starts in the middle, then only moves right, rather than both directions. Why don't you come up with some sources that show the Post is unbiased. NationalInterest16 (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Post certainly has a left-leaning editorial stance; however, its news coverage is solidly reality-based, and shows no obvious bias. Do you really think they'd do a cover-up of Clinton's alleged self-enrichment, if they found it actually existed? I doubt it. It's interesting to note that the main mass of the media lie to the left of the centre in that chart. Given that most of these publications are owned by vast for-profit corporations with no obvious motivation for left-wing bias, that suggests to me that consensus reality probably lies somewhere in that region. -- The Anome (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Crikey, this discussion is tiring and old. Just like the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune have a conservative lean, the New York Times and the Boston Globe have a liberal lean. Despite their lean, none of those news sources are unreliable. Breitbart, the National Review and whatever garbage sources you want to add to this article are wildly unreliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree that consensus lies somewhere in the region to the left. After all, FOX has the largest audience by a wide margin. So can we agree that all four sources should be added and we will let people decide for themselves? NationalInterest16 (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, seconding Sławomir Biały's comments above: even Fox hasn't pushed this one; their editorial leans way rightward, but their reporting of fact is generally reality-based. Again, if Fox had any actual evidence for Clinton's alleged self-enrichment, don't you think they would have published it? Have any of the right-leaning mainstream media (eg. Times/Globe) published similar fact-checking exercises? -- The Anome (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's another link. http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-aided-clinton-friends-1463086383 The Journal has been running stories on this for ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationalInterest16 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not a claim of self-enrichment: it is, at worst, one of conflict of interest. Perhaps we should change the claim being reported to that? Do you have more similar sources? -- The Anome (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały I am not suggesting that the Post or PolitiFact should be ignored, I am suggesting that both perspectives should be added so that people can make their own decisions. NationalInterest16 (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It sure seems like you want us to accept a false equivalence between right-wing commentator Dinesh D'Souza and the newsroom of the Washington Post, which you incorrectly characterized as "left-wing". But, by all means, try to be clear about what it is you want to say, divested of false partisan rhetoric, and supported by reliable sources, and it might be worth adding to the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I can provide more sources for both the conflict of interest and the self-enrichment. There are certainly plenty of them, its a fairly hot topic. NationalInterest16 (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do. But please keep it to reliable sources only, not partisan blogs. -- The Anome (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference List

Hi, I found it a little confusing in the reference list that there are some citations that have explanations and some do not. And wouldn't the notes section be a better place to put these explanations? I know there are different communities working on this page and that they will have different styles of citation but for a third party it just seems a confusing. --Ellesmith519 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, that's what you get when you write an article by committee: it's a wonder it works at all. I'm not a big contributor to this article, so I'll stand back from this, but the idea of a notes section sounds interesting. -- The Anome (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There already is a notes section. Explanatory notes could be moved out of the references section into that section in cases where they clarify the text, as opposed to just verifying it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Pattern of Concealment

MrX has reverted my addition of a source regarding concealment by Ms. Clinton dating back to 1993, and entirely related to the e-mail scandal. The quote that I used was from the source, and all of the sources on the referenced site are cited. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, MrX, please do not revert edits. JLMadrigal @ 15:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't add POV material from weak sources to the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Who are you quoting? It's not James Comey. Why would we use that particular line that originated from a Time article? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Comey's exact words were "a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct." I will use them instead. They are from the following cited Time article: http://archive.is/2016.03.31-144642/http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/#selection-2201.831-2201.881 JLMadrigal @ 15:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... Seems like a blatantly cherry-picked WP:OR/WP:POV use of that source. That's talking about Comey's investigation into the Clintons twenty years earlier. The outcome of the email investigation had not yet even been announced. So I think this is a really inappropriate use of that source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the edit blatantly violates WP:POV by cherry-picking a source.- MrX 16:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

With regard to discretionary sanctions, and in the hope that Wikipedia moderators do not have immunity from reasonable editorial standards, you should reconsider removal of sources within which solid sources are cited. Furthermore, the Hillary_Clinton#Email_controversy section is glaringly lacking regarding her long history of e-mail misconduct.JLMadrigal @ 16:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to summarize the email controversy as "a pattern of concealment" or "highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct". The information is relevant if attributed, but not without proper attribution. Also, the email controversy section in this biography is a summary of a much more detailed article. The source you are trying to use does not seem to meet WP:RS in that it is essentially published by an individual, does not have a editorial oversight, and has not established a reputation for fact checking.- MrX 16:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I was just thinking that the email controversy section ought to be significantly trimmed, as it is overlong and detailed, going into things that are not relevant from a biographical point of view. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but trimming would be quite challenging because of the need for context. It's one of those things that either needs a very light trim, or a serious slash 'n' burn. Achieving a "modest" trim would be hard to do. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the length should be revisited, but after the election. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing is supposed to be independent of elections. TFD (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly - which is why you don't see these kinds of changes being proposed for the dozens of politicians who are not currently engaged in campaigns. bd2412 T 23:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If TFD also feels that the section should be reduced in length, and replaced by a neutral one-sentence summary, then I'm fine with that too. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful when starting a discussion thread about a disputed edit to provide a link to the edit and to the source that supports it. In this case the "pattern of concealment" comment was made by a partisan lawyer on the Whitewater commission in 1993. Use of the quote would require in-text citation, explaining who Comey is and the context. And of course it had nothing to do with the emails, so we would have to show its relevance. Certainly the writer of the Thomson timeline saw it as relevant, but we would need a more explicit source. We would need a lot of text to include this while following NPOV and NOR, so it is best not to use it. TFD (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed further editing limitations on these articles through the election at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require consensus for candidate article edits through the election. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 October 2016

Request to remove porn and racist content ASAP. Bluestategirl (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

How did that even get on here? —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The page might have been hacked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Putin? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly just some Pepe the Frog enthusiasts.[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be the first time. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 October 2016

Cenationfan (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC) There is a racist message and obscene pictures popping on Hillary's page. Please make sure it's removed. This page is hacked.

User:Jupiters_angel Same thing happening on Bill Clinton & Chelsea's

Where? What? I don't see anything amiss. But something is obviously happening. What am I missing? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: It was added to Template:NYT topic, so it was transcluded onto here. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I see some coverage now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This crap had to have been transcluded onto other pages besides the Clintons if it was added to that template. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just locked down most of the templates on this article. They will have to be lowered to a more sensible level of protection after the election.©Geni (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is long!

Not really, and discussion veered into something unrelated
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is clearly to long. WP:AS says that articles with more then 100 kB of readable prose size "[a]lmost certainly should be divided". By the way, it doesn't really matter if her career is long. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC) What sort of division do you propose? 331dot (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC) I think we should split the article. MartinZ02 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC) In what way do you propose to split the article, keeping in mind the subpages that already exist? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC) The article's current prose size (text only) is 101 kB (16310 words).- MrX 23:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC) This is just gonna be one of Wikipedia's longer articles, given how much there is to cover. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC) I agree that the article is perhaps too long. I do not think it is likely to be pared down until after the coming election (if ever). In the mean time, too many special interests are in play wanting to add their personal pet issues (see recent discussions here). After that time, I think it's a good idea to consider specific suggestions to reduce the length. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC) In her junior year, Rodham became a supporter of the antiwar presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy...How about: supported the nomination of Eugene McCarthy. (I don't think she supported very many GOP candidates, ever. And the juxtaposition of supporter and antiwar is misleading embellishmnet considering her current public importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.228.26 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC) What does that have to do with the issue under discussion in this section? 331dot (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"a congenital liar"

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.

---

I have a reliable, Democrat-supporting source (The New York Times) that concludes HRC is "a congenital liar". I wish to add this to the article, but I got in a lot of trouble last time I wanted to insert critical material, so wanted to check here that it would be OK to add. I doubt this next one is possible, but could I insert a link to this Anonymous review of her career called "Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal"? Or someone else can add them if they think they are OK. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The first is an oped, which is not a reliable source for the factual claim that Clinton is a "congenital liar" (whatever that might mean). Futhermore William Safire is not democrat-supporting, and his controversial views on HRC are already discussed at his article. If cited in this article, it would need to be attributed, but it would then be undue weight to give the opinion of one commentator, non-NPOV not to incude followup, etc. So, the bottom line is: no. The other source appears to be a self-published YouTube video rather than a reliable source, so again: no. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as per @Sławomir Biały: -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What about the multiple polls showing that independents view her as dishonest? There have been plenty of objective studies done on this topic, as well as actual physical evidence that proves that on multiple occasions, she has indeed lied. Now the definition of a congenital liar, is someone who simply cannot tell the truth. I would argue that this also falls under the category of someone who is a serial liar I.E. someone who repeatedly lies. Now if there is objective evidence that shows she has repeatedly lied, what is the problem with adding it into the article that she is a congenital liar? NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It would help if you first linked that "objective evidence". Also, if we're using your definition of congenital liar, we'd need sources showing that she's never told the truth. Everybody lies, after all. clpo13_(talk) 22:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is one about how the majority of voters view her as dishonest. Poll Numbers Here is another Quinnipac Here is a source that shows one of the places where she lied to the American people Beghazi please keep in mind that what is important, is not the opinion of the writer in this article, it is the quotes that he provides. I would also note that she also lied about the issue of her health, first claiming allergies were the cause of the issue, then later it was discovered that she instead had phenomena. I can provide more sources if necessary. I would also suggest that instead of the term "congenital liar" we could simply include that a majority of voters view her as a liar. NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Polls are not considered to be reliable sources for factual claims. An example of a reliable source for the claim "Hillary Clinton is a congenital liar" would be an article by a geneticist, published in a peer-reviewed source showing that based on medical evidence, Hillary Clinton is, in fact, a congenital liar. Since, as far as I am aware, congenital liar does not appear to be a medically-recognized condition, I think it is extremely unlikely that a reference meeting our standard requirements for reliable sources will be found, the Goldwater rule notwithstanding. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

And as I stated at the end of my last argument, "I would also suggest that instead of the term 'congenital liar' we could simply include that a majority of voters view her as a liar." NationalInterest16 (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yea, no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Do you have any reasons for why this shouldn't be included, or are you just giving us an opinion without any information pointing towards why you hold that opinion? NationalInterest16 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:NationalInterest16, you would be advised to read our WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies before continuing to push this partisan nonsense. If you honesty do not see the problem with calling the living subject of an encyclopedia article a "congenital liar" on the basis of an opinion editorial, then I suggest that you have not really read our policies, despite being warned about the discretionary sanctions in place here. Either that, or you are not able to understand our policies. In any case, further tendentious editing from you will likely result in your removal from Wikipedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that I am incapable of understanding wiki's guidelines? I find this interesting, since you have failed to read my edits to this talk page on several different occasions. But since it clearly was not obvious enough the first two times, I will reiterate my statement: "I would also suggest that instead of the term 'congenital liar' we could simply include that a majority of voters view her as a liar." How many more times do I need to say that I do not want to put in the article that she is a congenital liar? I think you would be advised to read my edits before making accusations. Additionally, your threats about my removal from Wikipedia are completely unfounded and I don't think you habitually calling my edits "partisan nonsense" improves this article or Wikipedia. NationalInterest16 (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Information about voters' views/perceptions would belong on the campaign article, not here. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't wish to speculate on whether you can understand our guidelines. It's clear that you don't. Perhaps you haven't read them. But as I've said, it is completely unacceptable to call the living subject of an encyclopedia article a "liar" (or "congenital liar") without reliable sources. Also, WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. The discussion is now over. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Title etiquette ... first lady, or First Lady?

The article uses both in body-text (i.e. beyond headings, quotes and refs) in roughly equal numbers.

I was going to edit them all to caps, then on a hunch I did a quick check of the articles on Barbara Bush (also mixed) and Laura Bush (all but 2 use caps) so I'm not sure which is correct. On such a controversial page I'm not going WP:BOLD with this (or anything else). :P

Wayne 15:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: Even the First Lady article mixes it up! Wayne 15:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Sort of guessing here, but I'd think it would have to be caps when referring to a specific title (First Lady of the United States, or elsewhere) and lowercase when used more generally (a group of first ladies). --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

PPS: Even the article on First Lady of the United States mixes it up. Looking at WP:MOSBIO didn't help much as I'm not sure if the 'title', assuming that it counts as a title, is an 'honorific prefix, treated in MOS:HONORIFIC', or, as seems to me to be a closer fit, an occupation title, thus MOS:JOBTITLES. Perhaps, given that the title is applied by virtue of the person's relationship to the P/president, the same style should apply? Wayne 08:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

When used as a proper noun, it should be capitalized; when used as a common noun, it should not. That is, when we are specifically referring to HRC or to any other person, it should be capitalized, when we are referring to the office, it should not. Compare with the use of the word "queen" when referring to queens-consort. In some cases, it may not be clear whether it is being used as a proper or common noun, and we would need to look at it on a case by case basis. TFD (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Juanita Broaddrick

I added the following text in the article:

The Juanita Broaddrick case received renewed attention during the United States presidential election, 2016, as Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee for president. In January 2016 Broaddrick said on Twitter, “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73….it never goes away.”

References

I added this to show that Hillary has problems with this woman. I think it is relevant and should be included.--Broter (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We're not the mouthpeice of the fringe media. Find multiple impeccable sources and then we can discuss where this might fit into the article.- MrX 15:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec) "I added this to show that Hillary has problems with this woman." -- and? Half of the U.S. population have problems with Hillary, and Trump too. If we're going to add every single opinion of Hillary's detractors and supporters -- this is going to be a very long article. Oppose mentioning the thoughts of Broaddrick (or any other individual) in Hillary Clinton's biography. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 16:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated rape accusations from a long-discredited person do not belong on this page. This accurately reflect the status of this story, from 1999: Jack Nelson, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, said "This is a story that's been knocked down and discredited so many times ... [E]veryone's taken a slice of it, and after looking at it, everyone's knocked it down. The woman has changed her story about whether it happened. It just wasn't credible." That the Trump campaign and rubbish sources are now dredging this up does not make it relevant to Clinton's main article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The Hill (newspaper) is not a fringe news source.--Broter (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Whether the source is a fringe source or not, the unsubstantiated assertion that in 1978, Hillary Clinton gave a woman a compliment at an event is not an encyclopedically notable assertion. Otherwise, we would need to include every instance of Hillary Clinton giving people compliments at events. bd2412 T 16:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It has received sufficient attention that neutrality requires we mention it, and of course there is nothing wrong with quoting Nelson's comments in 1999.[3] But other reporters had other opinions and the story has been revived this year in the media. Of course we should not say that Broaddrick's claims are true, because reliable sources do not say that. We should however say what reliable sources say, which is that she made the claims. TFD (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is a difference between whether the claims are true, and whether there is anything notable to the act itself, as opposed to someone's interpretation of it. We could say for example, "In a 2003 interview, Juanita Brodderick claimed that in 1978, Clinton gave Brodderick a compliment at an event". Putting aside the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for this having happened, and that Brodderick apparently didn't tell anyone about such a thing happening for 25 years (even years after Brodderick made claims about Bill Clinton), there is nothing notable about Clinton giving a woman a compliment at an event. bd2412 T 19:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the point. It is not what we consider to be significant, but "the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." It is not our role to adjust the weight in reliable sources to reflect what we consider important. If I am wrong, could you please point to a policy or guideline that supports our requirement to report only what we think is signficant. TFD (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Doubtless you could find a dozen sources reporting on what gown Hillary Clinton wore to Bill Clinton's first inaugural ball (in fact, I just checked, and you can - a purple, long-sleeved gown by Sarah Phillips). However, Clinton wore gowns on many occasions, though probably not as many occasions as events at which she gave people compliments. Should we mention this gown in the article? bd2412 T 19:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but we are not doing that. We are representing "the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." If you think mainstream media overemphasize what she wears, then write a letter to the New York Times. TFD (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• It is undue weight at the moment. This has not even emerged (yet?) as a major issue in any single news cycle, let alone a major election issue. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MrX, BD2412, Snooganssnoogans, and Sławomir Biały on this point, for the reasons they outlined. Neutrality^talk 02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I am confused as to how this has not been a "major issue in any single news cycle, let alone a major election issue." Is this just your opinion, because you don't think of it as a major issue in this election? Or do you have some sources that actually support that claim? This has been in the news for more than twenty years, and has received coverage from every single major news organization over the last couple of months, even including my local paper. Additionally, this is an issue that was brought up at length during the presidential debate! How can anyone possibly claim that this has not been a major issue for the election? I would also note that no one here is advocating that the claims be slated in the article as true, some editors are simply suggesting that this is an issue, that, at the very least, needs to be mentioned. I would also note that the comments of HRC herself are what has made this worthy of inclusion in the article. HRC has run her campaign off of the idea that she is better for women than Donald Trump, therefore her past stances on women have increased relevance in this article.

I would also draw your attention to the fact that whether or not the claims of Juanita Broddrick, or any of the other women who have suggested that Bill CLinton sexually assaulted them and Hillary Clinton tried to silence them, has no influence on whether it should be included in a wiki article. In this interest of neutrality, I would note that on several other wiki pages, alegations of sexual assault have been included, and that the allegations were also included on their wife's pages. Clarence Thomas NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Broaddrick wasn't even a big story in a single news cycle, despite the nationally televised publicity stunt by the Trump campaign. Sorry, but it's still WP:UNDUE weight, and arguably even WP:FRINGE at this point. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Now you are just claiming things that are not true NPR And again, I would like to argue that things are being treated very differently on the Donald Trump page, where his comments about women are in the lead of the article. Here, HRC's comments and behavior aren't even in the article at all. The precedent clearly shows that this type of information should be included, and yet, it is not included. What does this say about the fairness of Wikipedia? NationalInterest16 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that there weren't articles discussing Broaddrick at all, but that it really was not even a big story despite the Trump campaign's attempt to make it one by staging a nationally televised gimmick event. The NPR story says that Hillary thanked Broaddrick for her work on the campaign. Are you arguing that you would like to include a statement to the effect that "Hillary Clinton thanked Juanita Broaddrick for the work on her husband's campaign"? If so, why is this a relevant fact for the biography of a politician, who no doubt thanks many hundreds of people on a regular basis? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

As I have now made clear in several different instances to you, her comments about the women who allege sexual assault, went far beyond simply thanking Juanita Broaddick. Additionally, just so we're on the same page here, I would ask you to remember that Broaddrick has now said on several occasions that HRC was clearly inflecting that Broaddrick should keep her mouth shut about Bill Clinton. However, we don't need to mince words about what was in HRC's head when she said that to Broaddrick, because HRC's other comments about other women were extremely plain.

I am unsure what Donald Trump's positioning of women who have alleged sexual assault on Bill Clinton has to do with anything that I am suggesting, but if you want to keep bringing it up instead of discussing things relating to actual fact, you go right ahead. Now, onto one of your more relevant points, can you give me a definition of what a "big" story is in the news? Would it include, being talked about on a debate watched by 69 million people which is the equivalent of about 1/5th of the population of the country in which she is running for president? Would it include being talked about on national radio, national TV, and in local newspapers? What exactly is a "big" story in your mind? NationalInterest16 (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything here. We don't automatically insert by rote every piece of nonsense that Donald Trump would say about Hillary Clinton into the Clinton article. This particular issue seems to be an ephemeral part of Trump's campaign tactics, not something of any biographical significance to Clinton. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

True, but shouldn't we include information that is relevant to her life, her marriage, and her presidential campaign? This is still information, regardless of who brings it up, and its not just Donald Trump and Right-Wingers pushing this. George Stephanopoulos, a man who has donated large sums of money to the Clinton Campaign has stated that she said "We have to destroy her story" These stories about Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct have been covered by media outlets on the left and on the right. Additionally one of the women Paula Jones received $850,000 from Bill Clinton in a lawsuit settlement. Paula Jones is another woman who has stated that Hillary Clinton did her best to silence Paula Jones's allegations. NationalInterest16 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So, you maintain that we should mention Juanita Broaddrick in this article because Hillary Clinton thanked her at a campaign event more than forty years ago, and allegedly inflected her voice in a threatening way? No, we're not going to do that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Alfred Taylor

at a minimum the wiki should mention she was his attorney.--2600:8800:FF04:C00:90C:69BD:1C86:33F1 (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It does not seem biographically significant to the point of including in this article. She ran a legal aid clinic at a law school, and in that capacity took on various criminal defense matters, including a rape case assigned to her by the judge in the case.[4] - Wikidemon (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Every single criminal case in U.S. courts involves either a defense attorney defending a guilty person or a prosecutor trying to convict an innocent person. That's the way our justice system was designed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

white washing at its best - under your theory the legal defender, David J. R. Frakt, of the world trade center and pentagon who got water boarded should therefore have no article because as you say "Every single criminal case in U.S. courts involves either a defense attorney defending a guilty person or a prosecutor trying to convict an innocent person. That's the way our justice system was designed." which is absolute rubbish - and someone running for president of the only superpower left in the world and yet no one needs to know as part of an "encyclopedia" is pure bias at its best.--2600:8800:FF04:C00:C123:9BE1:5248:EB97 (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

is this wiki article some kind of biased whitewash by Clinton supporters? - where is the section on Thomas Alfred Taylor?, child rapist of 12-year old--2600:8800:FF04:C00:C123:9BE1:5248:EB97 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Attorneys represent many clients, not all of them by choice, and not all of them innocent. Regardless, in our system of justice, every person is entitled to a presumption of innocence and to legal representation so that they can properly defend themselves. The fact that Clinton at one time represented someone you personally find distasteful (and, apparently, she did as well) is interesting, but not necessarily of relevance to an encyclopedia-length biography. She undoubtedly represented many clients during her time practicing law; do you believe we should mention every single one? If not, on what grounds are you singling out this particular client of hers for mention here? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you are in agreement with the whitewash - if it is so boring a topic and so common an activity "WHY REMOVE IT?" - leave it in and EXPAIN IT - yes that's right because you are bias and wish to push that bias by altering the narative--2600:8800:FF04:C00:C123:9BE1:5248:EB97 (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It fails WP:WEIGHT. I'm sure if you find yourself charged with a crime and are assigned an attorney, you hope that person will defend you to the best of their ability as well. That's how the legal system works, and it is part of the reason why America is already great. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Section on drugs

Would like to include a section on Clinton's position on drugs. Request regular editors of this page to review and provide direction. Some references that can be used to develop this section given below.

• Plan - 1) a $10 billion plan to "combat America's deadly epidemic of drug and alcohol addiction" 2) boost treatment and recovery programs 3) prioritize "treatment over incarceration for nonviolent and low-level federal drug offenders." [Source http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politics/hillary-clinton-10-billion-drug-addiction-fight/]Prodigyhk (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I support adding this to Political positions of Hillary Clinton for sure. Not sure about here, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It belongs there, not here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That is not a political position, it is more a campaign promise, which might belong in the campaign article. A better description is "Clinton has been a long term supporter of the War on Drugs, including the use of military force abroad and incarceration at home. She opposes the legalization of marijuana which she sees as a gateway drug, and the use of medical marijuana until it has been extensively studied. She has recently come out for treating low level drug users as a medical rather than criminal problem." TFD (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I approve.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That would work, except that you provide no sources, used biased language, and are misstating her positions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds NPOV to me. Just stating facts. Good point about sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I echo the need for sources. That would also help to achieve NPOV. I am concerned particularly about the first sentence, most especially "...incarceration at home," which is at odds with her more recent policy positions. If this was indeed an earlier policy position, it would need a source. Also, I was not aware that she was a strong supporter of the war on drugs, and it would be good to have a source for that. I think this falls under policy positions, particularly as her position has changed over time, and not necessarily been part of the current presidential campaign. Anyway, if the above text can be properly sourced, it seems to me like a reasonable starting point. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

On The Issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There is this:

• Alexander, Michelle (February 10, 2015). "Why Hillary Clinton Doesn't Deserve the Black Vote". The Nation. Retrieved October 18, 2016. .

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Nah.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming there is consensus that this article is not the appropriate place for "Clinton's position on drugs," this talk page seems not to be the appropriate place to discuss that topic. Cinteotl (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, there is already a section on drug policy at Political positions of Hillary Clinton. Cinteotl (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Amnesty & other NPOV terminology

I've reverted once today already, so I can't remove it, but the addition of "amnesty" to the page and other terms here is clearly a NPOV issue, unless someone can link to where Secretary Clinton, her representative, or campaign has used the term "amnesty". The addition of "impose" and "single out" also are loaded terms. 331dot (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have reverted the addition. Amnesty is clearly not the same thing as "pathways to citizenship", the change didn't amount to simple rephrasing but introduced new elements that need to be backed by reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with the reversion. The new material was NPOV in its entirety. --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

CNN panel discusses O'Keefe video

This discussion had previously been archived without a good reason. Revelations that explosive were bound to have far reaching effects, are just now entering mainstream awareness. The "extremely disturbing" undercover video of underhanded tactics by Democratic linked organization is finally receiving mainstream coverage: Crowd Chanting Lock Her Up Live On CNN While Panel Discusses Project Veritas Robert Creamer, co-founder of Democracy Partners, (Redacted) has stepped away from his position. Why Did Vote-Rigging Robert Creamer Visit The White House Over 200 Times During The Obama Admin So far the mainstream media coverage spends as much print space trying to discredit O'Keefe as it does giving the facts.Phmoreno (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Because this is a BLP, and because O'Keefe has a history of questionable judgement with their editing, it'd be way too early to put this in a BLP until after the videos have been rigorously investigated.--v/r - TP 20:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this could be added, but probably at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No, this is unusable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Not okay to use, on any article. James O'Keefe is not trustworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you watch the video? It's pretty straightforward.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's anything like his past videos, I'm sure his edit makes a straightforward case that his unedited video disproves. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why were two Democratic operatives, Scott Foval and Robert Creamer, fired over this though?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the biography of this subject? bd2412 T 23:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please read my comment above. I wikilinked to the campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

ACORN was unjustly shut down after his 2009 hit job. Even if they were birddogging, why is that relevant enough to put here? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bob Woodward of The Washington Post said they are in the process of verifying the video.Phmoreno (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Phmoreno, you've done nothing to suggest how James O'Keefe's video is relevant to this BLP. Based on what you've written here, you may be using this page as a platform for your personal views, rather than for discussion of the article's content. Cinteotl (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This scandal is perhaps bigger than Watergate. Hillary and her campaign tried to portray Trump and his supporters as inciting violence. Clinton blames rally violence on Trump: ‘He lowered the bar’ when in fact her campaign is liked to the contractor who hired people to instigate violence at Trump rallies. The video also exposes voter fraud.Phmoreno (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA. I'm sorry, but that's the only proper response to suggest that this is worse than Watergate. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be a campaign issue. It was mentioned in the third debate.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It was mentioned. Of course Trump mentioned it. But "bigger than Watergate"? Really? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

So, it's a campaign issue. Could an administrator please copy and paste this topic at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, and could we please start a draft there to see what should be included? There's no need to discuss the issue endlessly; let's just discuss a specific content proposal. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just because Trump mentioned it doesn't make it a "campaign issue". Bring it up on that talk page yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not biographically relevant. Serious BLP (and veracity) concerns. Not seriously worth including at this time. For what it's worth, not established as a campaign issue either. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It was discussed in the third debate. A member of the Clinton team has been fired. Are we supposed to wait until the Clinton team admits it and figures out a positive spin? TFD (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is on "Hillary Clinton", the person, not "the Clinton team", which I presume is a reference to the 2016 campaign operation, which is not this article. bd2412 T 03:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Per this (in case it is not obvious to anyone watching the video), it really looks like Veritas is up to the same tricks that got it into trouble before (misleadingly editing, leading questions, etc.) Vargas has asserted that the videos stray into what he believes constitutes defamation. We should require very high quality secondary sources if we are to use this, considering the possible BLP issues. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• This looks relevant but not on this article. It belongs on United States presidential election, 2016 timeline. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Not here (a BLP), and not on the Timeline article (a straightforward listing of major developments like debates). If anywhere it could go into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, although if it is proposed there, I will oppose it. The source, O'Keefe, is too flawed, based on his previous record of a) attempting to instigate things or entrap his targets and b) misleading editing of his material. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic news on Clinton losing

Oh, dear! All those crying supporters of Clinton. Some really great pics here. And DO have a read of this. I guess all the sanitising of her Wikipedia page couldn't pull her out of all that stinking ****.

Anyway, can I propose that the reason she ultimately lost is that she is so horrendously establishment and so widely detested? That really should feature in the article on how she could lose to someone like Donald Trump. Perhaps this topic deserves its own article? What do you think? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:OR. However, we should add some analysis of the pro-HRC media (RS) bias, which kept much criticism out of this article and her campaign article. The biased RS definitely skewed our coverage on Wikipedia, but we tried to go by our policies. I fear we may have to wait until political scientists publish serious articles about this in peer-reviewed journals though.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, throughout the campaign there have been a small group of editors working night and day to keep any Clinton-related article scrubbed of criticism, often claiming that the information—regardless of sourcing—wasn't article-worthy by way of any number of draconian interpretations of policies and essays. I've been involved with this project for somewhere around a decade and never before have I witnessed so much biased and ideologically-motivated editing on Wikipedia articles in favor of a candidate. What occurred on these articles deserves a hard look. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Let's please keep the discussion focused on improving the article.- MrX 13:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The pro-HRC bias is relevant to this article, but I think it mostly comes from the RS we've been using as per WP policies.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic news on Clinton losing

Closing. Personal opinion, attacks on Clinton, claims of biased editing, etc. Please use the talk page only to discuss the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh, dear! All those crying supporters of Clinton. Some really great pics here. And DO have a read of this. I guess all the sanitising of her Wikipedia page couldn't pull her out of all that stinking ****. Anyway, can I propose that the reason she ultimately lost is that she is so horrendously establishment and so widely detested? That really should feature in the article on how she could lose to someone like Donald Trump. Perhaps this topic deserves its own article? What do you think? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:OR. However, we should add some analysis of the pro-HRC media (RS) bias, which kept much criticism out of this article and her campaign article. The biased RS definitely skewed our coverage on Wikipedia, but we tried to go by our policies. I fear we may have to wait until political scientists publish serious articles about this in peer-reviewed journals though.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Agreed. In addition, throughout the campaign there have been a small group of editors working night and day to keep any Clinton-related article scrubbed of criticism, often claiming that the information—regardless of sourcing—wasn't article-worthy by way of any number of draconian interpretations of policies and essays. I've been involved with this project for somewhere around a decade and never before have I witnessed so much biased and ideologically-motivated editing on Wikipedia articles in favor of a candidate. What occurred on these articles deserves a hard look. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC) This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Let's please keep the discussion focused on improving the article.- MrX 13:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC) The pro-HRC bias is relevant to this article, but I think it mostly comes from the RS we've been using as per WP policies.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC) I'm going to close this. It is not about improvements to the article. It is just accusations against unnamed other editors, combined with attacks on Clinton. Come on, folks, your side won. Can't you accept the win graciously, and move on? --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The issue of biased RS is a real policy problem we have on Wikipedia. I don't know what the long-term solution is. Closing topics one disagrees with seems counterproductive.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Go discuss it at WP:VP then. This is not the place. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It is germane to this topic/article. If you don't like a topic, no one is forcing you to look at it, but please don't close it. Let the other editors discuss it. Please stop trying to shut down debate to improve the content of articles. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Stop the nonsense. If you want to talk about WP:BIASED or WP:RS generally, go to WP:VP. If there's a specific source in this article, that's different, but WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN would be the better venues. WP:TPG is fairly clear. The OP of this thread is a troll and this was properly closed. Go discuss things in the appropriate venues. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

I would like to ask that "Hillary blew a 3-1 lead" be included somewhere in her 2016 Presidential race article Montystew (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Can you provide a source for this proposition? bd2412 T 17:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a meme. clpo13_(talk) 18:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

I would like to ask that "Hillary blew a 3-1 lead" be included somewhere in her 2016 Presidential race article Montystew (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Can you provide a source for this proposition? bd2412 T 17:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a meme. clpo13_(talk) 18:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Presidential transition of Hillary Clinton

Any thoughts about drafting the above article using Presidential transition of Barack Obama as a model? --101.161.174.247 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The Obama article was not initiated until the day after the election. That seems like a reasonable timetable; otherwise we will also need to start a Presidential transition of Donald Trump article. bd2412 T 15:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why either can't be drafted now, using the sandbox or draft space, but neither should become an actual article without a president elect. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no hurry, particularly because there isn't much coverage in reliable sources yet. Just a smattering here and there. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

What I really meant is the "smattering" can be collected somewhere to make an easier start for the article on November 9. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to a Draft:Presidential transition of Hillary Clinton or a Draft:Presidential transition of Donald Trump. Of course, even if Trump loses the election, he may attempt a presidential transition. If it makes you happy, I have started Draft:Presidential transition of Hillary Clinton; add to it as you wish. bd2412 T 16:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

bd2412, I came across your HC transition draft, and thought I'd make mention of an already existing Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton article (a similar article exists for Donald Trump), which, if she's elected POTUS, could easily, and I imagine would, be moved to Presidential transition of Hillary Clinton. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize those existed. One could easily become the "transition" article, but are we going to keep a "planned transition" for the losing candidate? Are those set of plans that don't come to fruition notable? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess so, based on past precedent of Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case, the draft is not needed at all. One candidate's "planned" transition will in fact become their transition. bd2412 T 18:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)