Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Clinton's head of transition team supports the Keystone XL pipeline, TPP and fracking

Where should we add that Clinton has hired Ken Salazar, who "has made headlines promoting the Keystone XL pipeline, promoting the TPP and defending fracking", as head of her transition team? In "campaign staff"?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton#Transition team.- MrX 22:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
No. Salazar's positions aren't out of touch with mainstream Democrats, so it's not particularly notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The International Business Times suggests environmental group don't trust Clinton to be on their side about the Keystone XL pipeline, TPP and fracking; they apparently think she hired Salazar because she agrees with him.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Ken Salazar was Interior Secretary, and as such he performed his duties according to the wishes of the Obama administration - just as Hillary Clinton did at State. Salazar's appointment isn't really notable, so it should probably be restricted to the transition article, and the article on the man himself. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Secret Goldman Sachs speeches

Could we please restore this discussion? The article STILL does not mention the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts, leading many in the media to wonder if she is hiding anything. The discussion was archived last month, but we really need to discuss this and find a way to make sure Wikipedia is not censored. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, it's very clear that you personally dislike Hillary Clinton's campaign, as any sane man can notice by looking at your contributions to this talk page. Please refrain from editing the page until you mature and learn to accept neutrality. Kabahaly (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making personal attacks. There is nothing personal about editing Wikipedia; we simply relay information found in the public domain. Why are we censoring the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts? There are countless reliable third-party sources about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
No, Kabahaly is absolutely correct. Your single-minded focus on tarnishing Clinton is not in the spirit of the project. We had the discussion, the consensus was not to include, and there has been nothing new since then. Perhaps we can revisit this again if Trump makes it a campaign issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I think this material should remain out of the article. It has no relevance to the campaign other than some minor scandal mongering by her opponents. Her speeches to non-government organizations are her personal business, not a matter of public interest.- MrX 13:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
No, there was no consensus to redact the information, that's why I started an RFC. User:Fred Bauder seemed to agree with me early on, as I recall. This should be restored. It includes the RFC, which was closed by User:BU Rob13 as "There is consensus that the speeches should be discussed and can be considered a "campaign issue", though not necessarily using that exact term. While the !votes were overwhelmingly in favor of "Yes", the "yes" voters seemed to be voting yes for the inclusion of the content somewhere in the article, not this specific wording or in any one specific location. If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that. ". Besides, there has been extensive media coverage about the fact that she will not release the transcripts, with headlines like The Clinton Tapes: What Is Hillary Hiding In Those Secret Goldman Sachs Transcripts? in the Investor's Business Daily for example. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored; it's also not supposed to be a campaign ad for HRC. As I said before, I LOVE HRC, but given the extent of the media coverage about this, and the result of the RFC, it should not be censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Which closure of mine is being invoked? ~ Rob13Talk 14:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I wikilinked to it above. (I also quoted your closing statement.) The RFC and relevant threads should be restored here because we are not done.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
That close was clear that there was consensus to have the info in the article. If someone is reverting you continuously, I'd take it to ANI. ~ Rob13Talk 15:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Take it to ANI then, because this article has been stable for months without that crap in it. Also, Investor's Business Daily is a poor quality source, notable for saying Professor Hawking would be dead if he lived in the UK. And the speeches are not "secret" if everyone knows about them, for goodness sake. This is just more right wing crap, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I explained this to you several times: please read secrecy. The transcripts meet the definition of secrecy, since she has repeatedly refused to release them. She is hiding them from the American public. I have neither the time nor the energy for an ANI, but User:BU Rob13 suggests your side lost the RFC and since you don't own this article, you should let other editors add referenced information as per consensus. Why are you so afraid of saying she does not want to release the transcripts and she wants them to remain secrets instead? It's the truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, please assume good faith.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I've looked at the article itself to determine if it seems to be complying with the consensus of that RfC. In my opinion as the closer of the RfC, the existing text in Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016#Post-2008_election as of the writing of this comment satisfies the community consensus that information about the speeches should be included and should be identified as something that was an issue in the primary. If further additions are desired, another RfC might be appropriate, and one would certainly be required to remove that information given the existing consensus. ~ Rob13Talk 17:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
User:BU Rob13: The current text says, "Her paid speeches to Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs in particular, would later draw criticism from campaign opponent Bernie Sanders.". That is incorrect. It was not just Bernie, but most of the media. Moreover, the sentence fails to say that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. Do we need another RFC to include this widely reported fact?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
She has them apparently, because "Clinton also requires a flat fee of $1,000 to pay for an onsite stenographer to record everything she says. However, Clinton is not required to provide the host with a copy, according to the memo.".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I would consider a neutral addition that she was asked to release the transcripts by Sanders and has so far declined to do so to be within the consensus of the RfC, but the media stuff wasn't really touched there. ~ Rob13Talk 17:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
But it wasn't just Bernie. Journalists would ask her and she would dodge the question each time. That's why there are so many articles about the secrecy of those transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: I'm not saying whether it was just Bernie. I'm saying the discussion focused on whether it was a campaign issue, not whether the media widely pressured her to release the speeches. What you're saying may be true, but it wasn't determined by the RfC. ~ Rob13Talk 13:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems the issue had sufficient significance to mention it in the article. I would point out too that giving speeches to Wall Street banks has been Clinton's main source of income. TFD (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
It's already in the article, which has been stable for months. This is just about Zigzig20s wanted to add a healthy dose of right wing bias to make it sound worse than it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Scjessey: Again, please assume good faith, and don't make personal attacks. No, the fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the secret transcripts is not currently in the article. Neither are the six-figure amounts. That should not be censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
How can I assume good faith when you are so blatantly editing with a biased point of view? It's not a "fact" she has repeatedly refused to release the not secret transcripts, because as I said umpteen times the last time you brought this up, the ownership of the speeches lies with Goldman Sachs. The amounts she was paid for these perfectly normal speeches are already public record, and they have been published by a number of news outlets (including the NYT). And it is not "censorship" when we decided to exclude non-salient details that are of no interest to anyone unless they are conducting agenda-driven editing. The only reason you have brought this up again is because you were unhappy with the consensus wording that has been in the article for months, and presumably your interest has been renewed with her confirmation as the Democratic Nominee. This sort of disruption is harmful to the project, so please stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find it. However, it might be there. To bring the matter up to date, the situation has changed over the last few weeks. Clinton has adopted many of Saunder's positions, including close regulation of the financial sector. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, while I might post in a forum that Clinton is only posing when she adopts Saunder's political positions, I don't feel comfortable incorporating that suspicion in a Wikipedia article. Until she pulls a double cross there is no evidence. We went through the same thing with Venezuela, it's not a dictatorship until the mass murder starts. Until then they are a democracy that holds regular elections. Assuming hypocrisy, wisely or foolishly, is not based on evidence. Whatever she said in those speeches is superceded by her contemporary position. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The media believe the transcripts are secrets: known by HRC and Goldman Sachs, hidden from the American public. She could release them to end the suspicion. We know she hired a stenographer to transcribe the speeches, so surely she has them? I have not seen a reliable source suggesting they are the property of Goldman Sachs. In any case, the salient fact is that she has repeatedly refused to release them.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
No one has said the speeches belong to Goldman Sachs. BTW her Canadian speeches are mostly on Youtube. She was paid USD215,500 for speaking at Canada 2020 which was also posted on their website.[1] TFD (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, User:Scjessey wrote earlier, "the ownership of the speeches lies with Goldman Sachs". How does he know that? The issue with Goldman Sachs (wonderful company which has been besmirched by this whole scandal btw) is that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. It's become an issue because the press has published so many articles about it, suggesting she may be hiding something from voters.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I mean no one quoted in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. She has no excuse.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
What is currently in the article is more than sufficient. Phrases like "she has no excuse" make it clear where you are coming from. Please stop disrupting the project to further an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not. You are censoring referenced information. I'm sorry but since you post your Twitter account on your userpage, anyone can see you are an HRC superfan in your tweets. One may even wonder if you work for her campaign? In any case, User:The Four Deuces seems to agree with me that we ought to add that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches--that's all widely reported in the public domain--it should appear here too.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Unlike you, I am capable from separating my personal political leanings from my Wikipedia editing. And you would do well to remember I don't even have a vote in this election, as a British citizen. Since you are attempting to overturn a longstanding consensus that has given us months of a stable article, you are going to need more than a 24-hour eye-bulging rantfest of anti-Clinton venom to win approval for the absurd changes you are seeking. And will you please stop suggesting Wikipedians you don't agree with are working for the Clinton campaign! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I have zero "anti-Clinton venom", none whatsoever. I love HRC, if you will. But, I also love the freedom of the press, and the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. Or should not be censored. And we should not censor the widely reported fact that she has repeatedly refused to release the secret transcripts of her six-figure speeches to big banks. The bottom line is, your side lost the RFC, and we didn't update the article after the end of the RFC. This has to be done, or we need another RFC about this--but I am not sure why you are so afraid of the truth. User:Fred Bauder: Do you think we need another RFC to include this content, or can we simply ignore Scjessey?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This isn't about "censorship" or whatever (which is a different way of saying "I get to put anything I want into an article", which is just not how an encyclopedia works, especially on BLPs). It's actually about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Start putting up sources or there's no point to this discussion. Until then it stays out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not undue or fringe at all. It partly explains why the American public thinks she is dishonest. The media don't think it is undue. I provided references in the long discussion, which was archived and should be restored to this talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
No, the American public thinks Clinton is dishonest because of 25 years of lies and attacks from Republicans, and the gullible masses believe them. I personally don't like Clinton because (a) she lied out of her ass on the "running from gunfire" story, and (b) her "as far as I know" response to the Obama-is-a-Muslim bullshit was in stark contrast the statesman-like response from John McCain to that whack job lady who called Obama an Arab. But most of what the Republicans throw at her is completely fabricated garbage, and she's one of the most honest politicians running for office. And as a private citizen, there was absolutely nothing wrong with giving speeches to corporations and she was free to make as much money as she liked. There's simply no justification for your continued attempt to shoehorn anti-Clinton stuff into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's just the truth. She has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. That is a fact. Facts, by definition, are unbiased. And widely reported in the press. This should not be censored. I guess we may need another RFC...but there should be no need for it, since it's not questionable in any way, shape or form--it is, quite simply, the truth, nothing but the truth...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
You're not getting the point. Why the fuck does it matter? Nobody cares. Nobody is talking about it. The election circus has moved on. It turns out that from the historical perspective we write Wikipedia articles in, it didn't make the grade. It was a one-week wonder. Nothing to see here. Move along. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's still an issue, since she has not released them. It may be an inconvenient truth, but it's a fact.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey, it does not matter if Clinton is in fact honest, we are merely reporting public perception. Polls consistently show that most voters consider her dishonest and a June 1 poll showed that only 15% of voters consider her more honest than most politicians.[2] And indeed the paid Wall St speeches attracted a lot of attention during the primaries and hence should be mentioned unless you think that we should delete mention of the primaries since they are now over and Sanders has endorsed her. TFD (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Nobody cares. Please stop beating the dead horse. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
There are many third-party references. I know you don't like it; that's why we had an RFC. It's referenced content; we should add it.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The relevant stuff is already in the article, and the article has remained stable for months. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
No, we had an RFC to add more content about this. The article needs to tell the truth: she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong. The conclusion of the RfC did not support additional content. Read the comments from the contributors and the closer. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
So do you object to this fact to the extent that I need to start another RFC to include it?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
No, we don't need another RfC, for goodness sake. RfCs are for requesting comment when discussion is deadlocked. Why is everyone suddenly abusing the hell out of RfCs? And for the record, nothing you want to include in the article is a "fact" in the way people normally understand the meaning of the word. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's deadlocked by you. Yes, it's a fact that she won't release the transcripts. Yes, I'm afraid we may need an RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It was an unnecessary RfC to begin with that resulted in an inconclusive close because it was premature and badly worded. The last thing we need is yet another concurrent Hillary Clinton RfC just because one editor wants to change the wording. The material is already in the article. It doesn't belong in the lede, and calling the speeches "secret" is POV. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's what the press has called it, and it looks like we need another RFC to add referenced content because of the "deadlocks"/gatekeepers. It is tedious, but the material is NOT in the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The current article text is: "In the meantime, Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations." Do you have any proposed text for expanding or changing that? If you do I'm sure people will give it a listen. I don't think calling them "secret" is likely to fly, but being more descriptive about what actually happened like "including 8(?) speeches to Goldman-Sachs and other financial institutions. She was later criticized during the primary campaign by Sanders, X, and Y for refusing to release transcripts of those speeches." Not exact wording, but something like that would probably gain consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
What's really missing is her refusal to release the transcripts (as I've repeated many times in this thread!). Would you like us to mention every single newspaper and politician who brought this up? We would need to add how many times she refused to release them, as well as the fact that some journalists have suggested she may be hiding something. We can also make a list of all the newspapers that used the word "secret" to describe them. It would be less work for us if she just released the transcripts, but we need to make sure this Wikipedia article is not censored, so this is very important content to add as long as she keeps hiding the transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, my rough verbiage mentions the criticism around her refusal to release transcripts. Sources dictate substance, not word choice. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on the word "secret", that doesn't really clarify or add to anything pro or con. As a guess, there may or may not be consensus for adding to the statement "for refusing to release" a statement like "and suggested that she had her she had refused because she did not want to disclose what she had said in those speeches." That's a more factual way of saying the same thing, as opposed to calling them "secret". - Wikidemon (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure. So I guess we need another RFC for this.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Disclosure, I voted for Bernie, so I can't be accused of "right-wing bias", though maybe someone will accuse me of anti-Clintonn bias. The speeches controversy seemed to me one of the major issues in the primary campaign, Sanders made a big issue of it in at least one debate [3] (and IIRC other debates, but the top results on Google appear to mostly be about that one debate). Seems like that clearly belongs in the "Controversies" section. Clinton defended herself in the above-linked debate by saying other candidates had given similar speeches, and she'd release her transcripts when they released theirs. Sanders responded that whatever the Republicans had done, he had no speeches to release. If we can find a source saying Goldman Sachs has copyright over the speech transcripts, we can include that point too (honestly kind of surprised I never heard Clinton make that point—don't know if it's true, but wouldn't surprise me if it were). Chris Hallquist (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
After more Googling, Sanders may have only brought up the issue in the one debate. But Anderson Cooper had previously brought up the speeches during a Democratic town hall. Vox has other coverage ([4][5]), though my perspective may be getting skewed as an avid Vox reader. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
That's all academic. The issue here is that one editor wants to make a big deal out of the speeches being "secret" (even though everyone knows about them) because the word is provocative, but most editors are satisfied with the existing text, or something with slightly expanded detail. And on a related note, I absolutely detest "controversies" sections in articles. They are examples of very poor writing and invariably act as shit magnets. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
You have a responsibility to assume good faith. The transcripts are secret (as described by third-party sources) because she has repeatedly refused to release them. As I said, we may need an RFC to include this, even though there are countless sources relaying this fact. I have no personal opinion.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Scjessey Fair points. Maybe it should be worked into the section on the primaries? Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Chris Hallquist: No, these were not "fair points". They were totally out of line comments about another editor (instead of addressing content!).Zigzig20s (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Chris Hallquist: The only way to find out would be to start an RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Goldman Sachs Bans Employees from Donating to Trump but "At the same time, the rules do not restrict donations to Clinton-Kaine.". It's been reported by Fortune (Goldman Sachs Bans Employees from Donating to Trump), The Independent (Goldman Sachs tells employees they cannot donate to Trump campaign - but no restriction on Clinton's), CNN (Goldman Sachs' top 1% employees can't donate to Trump), etc. User:CFredkin, User:Anythingyouwant, User:The Four Deuces, and others on this page: this campaign issue is hard to ignore, isn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's ties to Goldman Sachs have been widely covered by reliable sources during her campaign. Trump's refusal to release his taxes is mentioned in both his bio and his campaign article. I'm not sure why Clinton's refusal to release the transcript of her speeches wouldn't be mentioned here.CFredkin (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing here. Typical POV bullshit, quite frankly. When are you going to let this garbage go? I recommend this crap be archived, since the only person keeping it "active" is the originator, who posts from time to time to fend off the bot. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, the fact that Goldman Sachs partners are not authorized to donate to Trump's campaign but welcome to donate to Clinton's campaign is definitely "something" according to The Independent, CNN, Fortune, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
FALSE. Goldman Sachs partners (less than 500 people) are not authorized to donate to any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official. That includes Mike Pence, who is a current state official, but does not specifically include Trump, Clinton or Kaine. This is to comply with federal law. Since Trump has allied himself with Pence, it's just bad luck for him, basically. The right wing organs like CNN Money (CNN Money is to CNN what CNBC is to MSNBC - a right wing offshoot), The Independent and Fortune have noted the coincidental timing and used it to rehash the false controversy you like to talk up, but that is all. There's still absolutely nothing wrong or illegal, so this is just more of the same bullshit you are trying to use to smear the Clinton campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I took a quick look through WP:RS just to make sure, and it turns out that using all caps and calling things bullshit doesn't count as a source. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
That's your opinion, but opinions are irrelevant on Wikipedia. Instead, we rely on third-party sources like CNN, The Independent, Fortune, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, forget it. You guys will always use Wikipedia to further your agenda, no matter how hard reasonable people argue with you. I give up. Just know that this garbage isn't making it into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's an easy step-by-step guide: 1) Carefully read WP:CIVIL, 2) Carefully read WP:CIVIL again, 3) Provide a source for your claim that partners are not allowed to donate to either campaign. I honestly don't give a crap if it's in the article or not, but if one side has sources, and the other doesn't, the side with the sources wins. TimothyJosephWood 22:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, WP:UNCENSORED.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
FYI, that policy usually applies to material opposed on moral grounds, not on political ones, and invoking it on political issues is seen as a sign of a newish user unfamiliar with its application. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a new user and I've just re-read it. It does not say that UNCENSORED does not apply to politics. Ergo, Wikipedia does not censor politics, even if the content is seen as "objectionable" by some.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:UNCENSORED means we don't censor nudity or profanity. It does not mean that inappropriate content has to be added because otherwise it's "censorship". Read: "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) " – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but this violates nothing. The Clinton campaign can sue CNN, The Independent, Fortune, MarketWatch, etc., if they want, but they are simply reporting facts relevant to the campaign and we should relay that information, based on the aforementioned reliable third-party sources and more.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm tardy to this party and tl;dr but what's the issue? She gave speeches, like everyone else in her position does. WP:UNDUE seems to apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The speech transcripts got way too much media coverage, were mentioned in debates and by Sanders (and Trump I think?) for Undue; it is totally Due. But read above. Now Goldman Sachs won't let their highest paid employees donate to Trump's campaign, but they can donate to Clinton's.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
It does seem odd that, as a major point of contention in the primaries, the GS speeches don't seem to be covered at all in the article. TimothyJosephWood 23:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Read above and also this archived RfC and discussion. I guess we may need a second RfC, as the editor who closed the first one, User:BU Rob13, wrote "If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that.". But now there is also a second issue, Goldman Sachs top employees only being authorized to donate to Clinton's campaign, not Trump's.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
RfC is a second resort after attempts at achieving local consensus have failed. If one dissenting user is the only blockade to a local consensus, then there is a local consensus and no RfC is necessary. It seems the appropriate response here is to propose the addition of wording that is strongly supported by sources. See my own personal essay here for doing that. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Taking another look at the article, it doesn't mention Sanders much (mostly regarding fundraising) and barely mentions Trump at all. It would seem that Goldman Sachs could be fit in somewhere that discusses her race against Sanders, but what we have is WP:PROSELINE statements about who won what primary/caucus. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The main thing about the Goldman Sachs speeches, for most reliable third-party sources, is that she has repeatedly refused to release them. Some sources suggest she may be hiding something. Now top employees are not allowed to donate to her rival's campaign, but they can donate to hers.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that all previous recent presidential candidates have always released their tax statements. Trump's refusal is unprecedented. On the other hand, the "transcripts of speeches" ... that's more or less just made up as a political attack. An encyclopedia really does NOT need to include every single political attack during an election. Coverage in sources is vastly different in scope as well. So no, we don't need another WP:AGENDA POV edit to this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

We should also ask ourselves if the speeches had any effect on the campaign. The answer is no - she won the primary with ease. It was a non factor. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Chronologically, as far as I can remember, Clinton brought up Trump's tax returns after she had repeatedly refused to release her Goldman Sachs transcripts. Now, those transcripts have received a lot of media coverage; and now Goldman Sachs top employees are only allowed to donate Clinton's campaign, which has also received a lot of media coverage. I think we should stick to reliable third-party sources and write about Clinton's own campaign here--namely, the Goldman Sachs transcripts and Goldman Sachs donations. Again, reliable third-party sources make this overdue for inclusion.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I seem to remember she struggled a little bit to win the primary, and even the DNC and "ease" don't go well together, given the Bernie Bros' booing, etc.. Besides, we should not try to draw our own conclusions about content from reliable third-party sources. That would be WP:OR.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The transcripts have received more attention from you personally than all of the mainstream media combined. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Have you heard of this thing called google? TimothyJosephWood 16:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I am unfazed by what sounds like a personal attack. I only care about improving this article with reliable third-party sources, as User:Timothyjosephwood suggests. It's not about me or you; it's about reliable third-party sources. It's also about Hillary Clinton and Goldman Sachs.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The speech thing was one of the core issues of the primaries, has been covered in a multitude of reliable sources, and was a major topic in, I believe, two of the primary debates at length. I don't see a good argument for including Benghazi (voted #1 cringe worthy political farce of 2016), and not including something about the socialism vs. corporatism narrative of the primaries.
As a side note, if you can't discuss something without making personal attacks and indiscriminately spewing bile at anyone who disagrees with you, while at the same time adding nothing of substance to either the conversation or the article, then you should probably consider editing in a different topic area. TimothyJosephWood 16:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
This was already discussed, the decision was NOT to include. All this latest stuff is just because Zigzig20s did not accept the consensus. At the time, we decided to revisit the matter if Trump brought it up after the primaries. He hasn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
That is incorrect. (Is this an "artful smear"?) There was an RfC, closed by User:BU Rob13, who said, "There is consensus that the speeches should be discussed and can be considered a "campaign issue", though not necessarily using that exact term. While the !votes were overwhelmingly in favor of "Yes", the "yes" voters seemed to be voting yes for the inclusion of the content somewhere in the article, not this specific wording or in any one specific location. If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that.".Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
As for the fact that Goldman Sachs top employees are banned from donating to Trump's campaign but welcome to donate to Clinton, we don't need to wait for Trump to bring it up. Reliable third-party sources already have.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Moving on to something potentially productive, I suppose my question is where did this issue originate? If I remember correctly, Sanders just jumped on the wagon and it was already a story when he brought it up on the stump and at the debates. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
We're not going to add the Goldman stuff at this point, and this isn't the right time to rehash a consensus discussion based on false claims. Let's put a nail on this please. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Timothyjosephwood: You are correct. It came from the media (not sure which newspaper first broke the story), and they kept asking Clinton if she would release those transcripts. She kept refusing to release them. Then it was mentioned in the debates, and Sanders mentioned it too.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Wikidemon: Why? The last RfC concluded that we should. You don't WP:OWN this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
This is the discussion regarding specific wording. That was the result of the RfC. TimothyJosephWood 17:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I think a good starting place, since you seem motivated do dig, would be to leave the breaking news stuff to the side for the time being, and look back in the ancient history of...say...February or March, and find out where the story came from originally. What I mean is, find a specific, high quality, mainstream, reliable source from when this started. TimothyJosephWood 17:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we absolutely need to find out who asked her about those transcripts first. It would be nice to find the detail, but that sounds like another potential distraction. We can always add this detail later, if it resurfaces. The point is the RfC concluded that her consistent refusal to release the transcripts of her highly paid Goldman Sachs speeches should be mentioned in the article. Now reliable third-party sources have highlighted that Goldman Sachs top employees are only allowed to donate to her campaign. Let's add this.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The current issues about employees, even if there was a consensus for adding it in particular, would make no sense without the context of the speech...issue...thing... generally. TimothyJosephWood 17:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, they both make sense. But by "this", I mean let's add both.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
And again, it shouldn't be seen as our decision. It's the decision of reliable third-party sources...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
So...take my advice, and go get the most comprehensive and reliable source you can find for the topic generally, and we can work off that to propose specific wording. I'm going back to my cave for the time being, because 19th Century politics is much simpler. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no issue with Goldman employees, and no connection between a preexisting federal law about political donations and Clinton's speaking engagements. Can we just cut this constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT nonsense and move to something productive? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure. I consider gathering high quality sources for content overwhelmingly supported by an RfC fairly productive. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Reliable third-party sources have made the Clinton-only donations from Goldman Sachs partners an issue. We can't (and shouldn't try to) control that. The same goes for her consistent refusal to release those transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Then reconsider, Timothyjosephwood. You are promoting unproductive and borderline disruptive behavior on this talk page. I trust that is not your mission here editing the encyclopedia, so please be a little more thoughtful before jumping into talk page disputes to offer encouragement to editors that are having trouble with the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not disruptive to do what the RfC concluded. It's exactly what we ought to be doing. If you don't like it, please don't try to disrupt other editors's hard work.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Zigzig20s, your actions here, specifically, are at issue. If you can reign in the stream of fringe, conspiracy, trivial, and POV stuff, your substantive contributions are welcome. This was the wrong time to resurrect the old discussion of Clinton's speech-making, which is more or less a dead issue at this point. The Goldman contribution stuff is blatant nonsense, and has been dismissed as such by the sources. If you need some perspective about the importance and relevance of various political talking points and news of the day, please propose them in a way that is collaborative instead of advocating them, and listen to what the other editors around here have to say. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, clearly User:Timothyjosephwood agrees that this should be included. So did the majority of the respondents to the RfC. If you disagree, who cares? The consensus for inclusion is with us. Now please let us do some serious work with reliable third-party sources. That's all that matters.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, my position is: 1) the RfC clearly supports the WP:DUE weight of the topic, broadly and in principle; 2) the employee donation question is moot until there is something to add it to, which currently there isn't, so the debate is tabled for the time being; and 3) continuing to debate hypothetical content in the abstract is a waste of time, so we can continue this when Zigs provides a quality source, or better, two of three, that comprehensively cover the topic of the speeches in the broadest sense possible. TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
(after ec, addressed to Zigzig20s) Who cares is you, if you intend to work with others on improving these articles. My last comment to you is a pretty good summary of what you can do to be useful and get along with the community. A defiant attitude is not going to help your case, as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT generally doesn't work. If you have any serious proposals with real sources, you are welcome to bring them up in a reasonable way. Harping on "secret" Goldman speeches, and discredited nonsense about Goldman employees not being allowed to donate to Clinton, is pointless and wears out other editors' patience. Timothyjosephwood is correct that bringing quality sources to the table (and I will add, relevant sources, fairly presented and of due weight, minus any POV advocacy) is the way to support a content proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I started this subsection (from 'arbitrary break' onwards) with multiple reliable third-party sources about the donation restrictions for Goldman Sachs partners. I can do the same with HRC's consistent refusal to release the transcripts (thus meeting the very definition of secret: known to HRC and Goldman Sachs, but hidden from the media and the American public/voters). I did present third-party sources in the past; there are many; as User:Timothyjosephwood said earlier, you too could Google it if you are in doubt. (By the way, the community agrees with me as per the RfC conclusion.) Now, I will start a draft, but no need to pressure me.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Rfc: Is father of Orlando gay club murderer relevant to the campaign?

(non-admin closure) Exclude - Closing early per WP:SNOW. Clear & overwhelming consensus is that inclusion is not supported by WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENT, and WP:NOTNEWS. Seddique Mateen's attendance at this event is not sufficiently related to the topic of the campaign itself to warrant inclusion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Seddique Mateen is the father of the mass murderer in the June 2016 massacre at a gay club in Orlando. He attended a rally for the Clinton campaign and endorsed Clinton. He has publicly commented that while he disapproves of the murders, he is against homosexuality (or maybe not). These facts were reported by media outlets as something of interest to the campaign (presumably, something that could influence voters to vote for or against Clinton), but public commentary on the matter died out after a few days.

Should this incident be mentioned in the article?

I request that people not comment here on details of what the article should say about the incident, but focus on the simpler threshold issue of whether it is even worth mentioning, as there is already controversy over even that. If consensus is that the matter is appropriate for the article, further discussion can determine details. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

He says he was invited. Don't twist my words--or his.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
He never said "who" invited him, certainly not anyone in the Hillary campaign or DNC. Read the Snopes link I shared. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The first point in my response was that he was invited. That was it. Apparently by the Florida Democratic Party, but that was not my point (though that appears to have been Saddique's). I then proceeded to make two more points. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Because the Florida Democratic Party "invited" everybody in the general population. I'll respond to any points you make when I can find them. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The RFC asks, is he relevant to the campaign? The answer is yes, because he was invited to and attended a campaign rally; plus mentioned by Pence and Trump during the campaign. Enough!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
No, "he" was not invited, any more than you or I were. And not everything that comes out of the mouth of a POTUS or VP nominee is going to be included (WP:NOTNEWS). – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
He says he was invited. But in any case, the RFC asks, is this relevant to the campaign? For the aforementioned reasons, yes, it is, no need to ask me again.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you not understand that "He says he was invited" and "he was invited" (both direct quotations from you) do not mean the same thing? You have provided no evidence of the latter. Graham (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) From Snopes: "Both Mateen and the Clinton campaign explained his appearance at the rally as a function of the event's being 'open to the public,' and neither party stated or implied that any invitation had been extended to him or accepted." – Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
He says, "I was invited.". We have no reason to believe that he lied. This is veering off topic. The RFC asks, is this relevant to the campaign? Yes it is, because the rally was a campaign rally. Enough already!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Um, we absolutely have "reason to believe" that what he said is untrue. Did you not read the article Muboshgu posted? And deconstructing your argument is definitely on topic – unless you're suggesting that your argument is itself irrelevant…? Graham (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Please re-read my first response after "Include". It includes the word "campaign" several times. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
And what's your point…? Graham (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I responded to the RFC, as requested by User:Giraffedata. Sorry I won't have time to repeat this endlessly. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No, and don't be ridiculous. We are trying to make an encyclopedia here. A good question to ask about stuff like this is "will future generations, people 30 or 40 years from now, find this useful information". Lots of people attend rallies and lots of people are sent to sit behind the candidate. No reasonable person thinks this means anything. IIRC Donald Trump had some unpleasant person sit behind him at one of his rallies and that also meant nothing. BTW Hillary Clinton had waffles for breakfast that day, shall we report that for future generations. Campaign reporters have to write about something every day. We don't. I know it's silly season but let's not get sucked into this. Herostratus (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Include What makes the story significant is that S. Mateen was seated behind Clinton by her staff. It gained further notice when Trump commented on it and ironically his staff placed a disgraced former congressman behind him. To answer Herostratus, yes people interested in Clinton's 2016 campaign and wanting to know more beyond one or two paragraphs will find it interesting. If she loses the election, she will only be remembered for being First Lady and first female candidate for a major party. TFD (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. I think it would be biased and left-wing favoritism, not to include it.--Broter (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude per WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. Articles of this nature must be written from with the historical perspective in mind. If nobody is talking about this mere days after the event, why would anyone think this would be of significance a year, two years or two decades from now? If we included every 24-hour news story into campaign articles, this article would be 12 times larger and the equivalent Trump article would be eleventy-billion times larger. Also, why was this RFC even necessary? The matter was discussed at length in the previous section with a clear consensus for exclusion. Now it appears that a certain RFC-happy editor has managed to convince someone to open this RFC by whining about it at WT:RFC. That really doesn't look good. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude This has as much bearing on the Hillary campaign as Mark Foley's presence at a Trump rally has on Trump's campaign. And for all the other reasons we've gone over, WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS. We don't replicate everything from every 24 hour news cycle. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: According to your reasoning, the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article could be significantly reduced in size because it is full with WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS. To include the David Duke story in his article and at the same time exclude this story in the Hillary article is biased without end. Omar Mateen has even an article. So it is relevant.--Broter (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. David Duke has directly and indirectly played a significant role in this campaign so far, while Seddique Mateen went to one rally, and hasn't been mentioned since ending its turn in the 24 hour news cycle. If you care to make any particular proposals about RECENTISM on the Trump page, make them on the appropriate talk page. (Oh and Seddique Mateen doesn't have his own page.) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
As User:Broter correctly explained--apples and apples. One could say both Pence and Trump believe Seddique Mateen "has directly and indirectly played a significant role in this campaign so far". Besides, at least Mateen went to a rally--as far as we know, Duke never did.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe Trump and Pence want people to think that. It's a ridiculous notion, which is why it died after it went through a 24 hour news cycle. Duke just works to stoke the relationship between Trump and the alt-right through his radio show (read some of those transcripts if you like). – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Mentioning Duke is equally "ridiculous", if not more. I won't read his transcripts--not interested in what he has to say. Trump has disavowed him, just like Hillary has disavowed Mateen. It's apples and apples--except Mateen went to a rally.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
No, HRC campaign disavowed Seddique Mateen when they heard he was there. Trump's first chance to distance himself from Duke didn't go so well. Apples to apples is Mateen and Foley. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
No, Mateen attended a rally, Duke didn't, actually. The question is, is he relevant to the campaign? The answer is yes, because he attended a campaign rally and he was mentioned by Pence and Trump, during the campaign. That's it.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude. This was a two-day story with no apparent enduring significance. As Herostratus and Muboshgu said, including this here would be analogous to including the Mark Foley thing on the article about the Trump campaign; both would be equally inappropriate. Neutralitytalk 18:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - This embarrassing incident received a brief burst of coverage after it happened and then quickly faded from interest. It would violate WP:NPOV to include this because it has not enjoyed sustained media coverage; it's only tangentially relevant to the campaign; and it would tend to unfairly associate the campaign and the candidate with a mass murderer.- MrX 19:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude I studied the Google News hits and timeline on it. The story broke on Aug 9, reporting that Clinton's campaign didn't invite him. Within a day the news reported Clinton disavowed him. The story rapidly died, with later coverage repeating that there was no connection. A second-hand connection of a relative of a murderer supporting of a random candidate may make a flash in the 24-hour news cycle, but it has no lasting significance in this article. It has already failed WP:RECENTISM. We are WP:NOTNEWS. This is WP:UNDUE. We can't and don't include every blip in the 24-news-cyle, especially when most coverage is deflating this blip as an irrelevant unwanted-endorsement. Alsee (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude. This proposal is not viable, and a poor reason to create yet another RfC — a process that typically takes one month — on a trivial content matter two months before the campaign in question is finished. This is not a substantive issue in the campaign, and even on the scale of "gotcha" politics it is no more than the opposition's talking point of the day. Filling campaign articles with these fake outrages would create a weight / POV problem, and would also veer into a covering of politics that is more tabloid than encyclopedic. I note that those advocating the importance of this non-event both on and off the encyclopedia seem to be conspiratorially minded, claiming that Clinton is somehow sympathetic or in cahoots with the terrorists. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I really don't follow the relevance of the fact that the campaign will be almost over before all the comments are in. As many of the anti-inclusion people have pointed out, we don't write Wikipedia articles for short-term interest. This article presumably exists because there is consensus that the campaign will be of interest long into the future. So what does this near-term election have to do with anything? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The relevance is that conducting an RfC on a current event of great interest that will culminate shortly after the RfC is done makes no sense, and is horrible editing process. The election article talk pages are being swamped with RfCs on trivial, POV-ish proposals like this. One of them managed to dupe you into starting this as his proxy by forum-shopping a complaint that he was being harassed on this page, after he was cautioned that his ongoing proposals were growing tendentious. Indeed, if we're writing the article for the longer term, anything that's actually worth having an RfC about can wait until after the election so as not to disrupt the business of productive article editing. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anything like consensus in the discussion above, which I read thoroughly before deciding to request comments. I see a small number of people solidly on each side of the issue. The question of whether something is notable and worth recording for history is something best answered by a wide audience giving their opinions, not by a few invested people bickering. Hence the RfC. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Why? This article is not about HRC. It's about the campaign. It's happening during the campaign. He went to a campaign rally and her campaign rivals have talked about it. So the RFC asks, is this relevant to the campaign?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The story has failed to get legs, so it's irrelevant. We keep things like Michael Dukakis' tank photo, the Dean Scream and Ed Miliband's sandwich because they achieved notability; not every single thing said in a campaign achieves lasting notability in this way. If it did, both campaign articles would fill up with every accusation and counter-accusation made by anyone in either campaign. If the story had taken on a life of its own, it would of course be appropriate to include here. But it hasn't, so it isn't. -- The Anome (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - This RfC is a great candidate for a WP:SNOWCLOSE, with a trouting for the editor who filed it for being taken in by a POV warrior so easily, and a topic ban for Zigzig20s for tendentiously editing, forum shopping, and wasting everyone's time again. This has got to stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Scjessey: Why can't you answer the question that User:Giraffedata asked--is Mateen relevant to the campaign, for attending a campaign rally during the campaign and being mentioned by her campaign rivals? This appears to be a campaign issue--that's why there is an RFC. Please stop trying to personalize Wikipedia editors--it is not "tendentious" to ask if this article should relay information from reliable third-party sources. This article is not supposed to be advertising for HRC. Please try to be constructive by taking this RFC seriously, as it should be. Besides, I am not alone: both User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter want to include it. Again, please stop personalizing this.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I already answered this question in full. I was the first "exclude" response. I also answered in full in the previous consensus discussion which you lost. By repeatedly bringing up the same thing on the same page, and then shopping it to other forums, you are absolutely being tendentious. RfC's are not intended to be used as a POV-pushing tool. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Giraffedata explained he did not see a consensus in the closed discussion. This is a serious RFC--your attempt to personalize this is fruitless.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The forum for trying to obtain a topic ban would be WP:AN/I, I believe. Neutralitytalk 15:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I am only trying to give the full picture of the campaign, based on reliable third-party sources. Remember, Duke is mentioned in Trump's campaign article. That is why we think Mateen should be mentioned here.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, what goes on in some other article has no bearing on what goes on in this one. I don't edit any Trump articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is not about you. It's about improving content. That is exactly what we are trying to do with this RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
No, but neither is Wikipedia meant to be your propaganda organ. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
We simply relay factual information from reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
LOL you don't. There's no "we" about it. You are trying to shoehorn stuff into the article that violates WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. In fact, you are trying to do this all the time because you aren't apparently capable of abiding by a consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
And you apparently don't know how to let someone else have the last word and let the RfC take its course. TimothyJosephWood 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
There should never have been an RfC in the first place. And talk about pots and kettles, dude. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Why are you afraid of letting this RFC run its course? Let editors decide! By the way, you have not answered User:Giraffedata's question about relevance.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
1. The purpose of a SNOW close is to stop wasting everyone's time. 2. Obviously, since I think it should be excluded, I do not think it is relevant. TimothyJosephWood 16:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I am frankly hurt if you think I don't value my time or other editors'. Both User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter think this should be included, and with the RFC, more editors may want to include it as well. I am not alone. We are trying to improve the article in a constructive manner here.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is clearly against including this, and it's not worth wasting any more time in telling you why it won't be included. You have a major case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which makes constructive dialogue difficult. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I have a major case of listening to other people, like User:The Four Deuces and User:Broter for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
But not the people who you disagree with. Do you need me to count them? Because there are a lot more than three people saying "exclude". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
No because the RFC has just started and we'll see how many want to include it for its relevance. That's the whole point of RFCs. Please be patient and respect User:Giraffedata. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Include The RfC is misleading because it does not explain the relevance to the campaign. In Orlando, where the killings took place, Clinton's campaign staff chose to seat Mateen close behind her. That's why the media gave it extensive coverage which continued after Trump drew attention to it and his staff placed a congressman who was forced to resign behind him. Who Mateen endorses is of course of no relevance, but what the Clinton campaign does is, at least in this article. As for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, this article is about a recent news event. Take out the recent news and there's no article. TFD (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - I hereby endorse Gary Johnson for President of the United States. Who cares? Whilst, of course, Mateen's endorsement is much more significant than mine, the principle is the same: as Herostratus points out, the aim of encyclopedias is to preserve knowledge for future generations -- future generations are not going to be terribly interested in how his endorsement impacted the race, and nor will they care how my endorsement impacted the race. This story lasted for one brief news cycle, and has not had any lasting effect on the campaign (opinion polling has not suggested any shift in voting intention based on the endorsement). Perhaps his endorsement could be mentioned on List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 but it is not worthy to go on this page -- and it is certainly unworthy to go on this page whilst the endorsements of far more notable people (e.g Warren Buffett) are not mentioned. Specto73 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Notnews, Recentism, Undue weight - Mateen has not been shown or reported to be relevant to Hilary's campaign. His attending the rally was about him, and had nothing to with Hilary's campaign. Her campaign rivals mentioned this incident hoping to cast Hilary in a negative light, which is what her political rivals have been doing since the 1990s. So this is not encyclopedic material. Rather, it turns out to be more fodder for the news cycle and is a trivial detail that won't matter once the president-elect has been elected in November. In fact, it is already well of the media radar anyway. I was just thinking, the media must love presidential election years - there is so much drama available. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:06, 10 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign/Archive_4&oldid=1083938415"