Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Health

This is WP:FRINGE stuff that has largely degenerated into a pointless argument, again.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi!

I came here looking for information on the health of Clinton.


A number of prominent doctors have gone on record with public statements with regard to her health (http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/10-prominent-doctors-question-hillarys-health/).

Is this not relevant? The 'Health' section of this article seems laughably short given the almighty speculation and only gives the 'official line'. Now, whilst I understand Wikipedia is not the place for idle speculation, the sheer volume of discussion surround her health surely merits at least a few sentences? 46.18.172.210 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "Wikipedia is not the place for idle speculation", but the sheer volume of discussion surround her health does not surely merit at least a few sentences. See WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Also, wnd.com is not a reliable source. Not even close.- MrX 01:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough.. and I accept WND isn't source material, but the issue has been discussed by both the left (eg. HuffPo, TYT) and right (eg. Fox News). Given that this article is on Clinton's campaign (as opposed to this being her own personal bio) I would have thought that it is relevant. It is a talking point of the campaign after all. I'm not saying any of it is even true, by the way, but I thought that an article about her campaign should include issues brought up by the campaign. Even if something was patently untrue - eg. she's an alien from mars, but the HuffPo, TYT and Fox all ran pieces about her being an alien from mars then that would still be a noteworthy part of the campaign. Just my two cents anyway 46.18.172.210 (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple issues brought up every day by various operatives for the opposition, ranging from legitimate criticisms to conspiracy theories, cynical attacks, and outright lies. We try to stay away from the pointless tabloid stuff. If you look at the Obama campaign articles from years ago, for example, we give little or no coverage in those articles to the conspiracy theories about his being a secret Muslim, Manchurian Candidate, terrorist sympathizer, non-citizen, etc., although they do have their own articles. Similarly, I haven't visited the Trump articles recently, but I doubt there is much coverage of the rumors that he is a secret Democrat plant trying to throw the election, or that he is running in order to improve ratings for an upcoming television show. No matter how much coverage those get, unfounded speculation isn't a proper subject for political articles unless it actually affects the course of the campaign. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, so if you really want the bottom line on Clinton and her health, there are probably better places to find it than here. - 03:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
We don't promote fringe attacks. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
There are definitely many reliable third-party sources about HRC's coughing fits and her refusal to release her extended medical records. But inclusion would probably lead to Wikidrama. Is it worth the aggravation?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a fringe view, period. We don't promote fringe views with zero evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not fringe to say she's had multiple coughing attacks, and that she has refused to release her extended medical records. Those are facts found in reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It is completely fringe and a BLP violation. Please stop wasting people's time with these fringe conspiracy theories and the POV pushing attempts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources debunk this nonsense, which is why it's not worth our time. I caught that Gingrich went into a coughing fit while attacking Hillary for coughing the other day. Trump hasn't released his extended medical records either. How much do you care about that? Or Trump's quack of a doctor? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said, it's not worth the Wikidrama. But it's also not fringe as per RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
WND is not a reliable source. Case closed. TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I believe there are other sources (reliable ones), but not worth the Wikidrama.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
If you don't want the freaking wikidrama could you please stop adding your two cents anytime a fringe or derogatory claim comes up regarding Hillary Clinton? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I could say the same and ask why you are still commenting when everyone is in agreement. TimothyJosephWood 19:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I could answer that: this editor his having some clashes with others, largely over the behavior about which I expressed disapproval. I'm trying to modulate that disapproval in a way that would discourage them from this particular thing, but let them know that they're otherwise appreciated and welcome. I kinda like Zigzig20s and their Wikipedia personality, I just hate to see us getting time and time again into stuff like Clinton's coughing on camera. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I did not start this topic. This subsection includes responses from several editors. Please stop fixating on me. There is nothing personal about editing Wikipedia; it is about improving content based on reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You are a person, no? So this is personal to you. You are having some trouble around here. Please modulate your approach to be more selective and less persistent in promoting derogatory, fringe, and POV material, if you wish to get along with other editors here to the point of useful collaboration. Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
No, there is no need to personalize Wikipedia editors. We don't matter; content does. Your persistent attempt to shame and osctracize me is tedious. Please forget me and focus on improving content instead. That's all I care about.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Jesus Christ just stop. Both of you. TimothyJosephWood 21:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Let's just focus on improving content. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
We should close this thread as a question that has been answered without any actionable content proposal. Going forward on this thread or any other, if this editor does not want attention from others for persistently posting fringe, POV, derogatory material about Clinton on talk pages, they can stop doing so. So long as they continue they will get attention, wanted or not, from me or other editors. It is as simple as that. Collaboration necessarily involves coordination among editors, and the talk page is an appropriate place for doing so. If advice of peers does not work here it may ultimately go to administrators or arbitration enforcement, but that is not an ideal scenario for anyone. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I have zero interest in such Wikidrama--only in improving content based on reliable third-party sources. If that content is deemed derogatory yet fact-based, it is not our fault; sources should decide content, we shouldn't. Yes, let's close this topic please, but there is a possibility that another editor will again ask about her health at a later juncture--just because it is all over reliable third-party sources. In any case, I am off to read a book.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether Clinton is healthy or not is irrelevant to whether we mention her health. Trump, WND, Alex Jones and the National Enquirer have all brought up the topic, the mainstream medfia has covered their claims, and Clinton surrogates have commented. We had the same issue 8 years ago when the Clinton campaign claimed Obama was not born in the U.S. and was a Muslim, which was picked up by right-wing media. We report the claims, campaign denial and informed opinion about them. TFD (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
That may be so. But some of us are not comfortable with gossip about living people, period. —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Not fringe anymore, Shes had a medical event, at an event. 'Hillary Clinton falling ill Sunday morning at a memorial service on the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks will catapult questions about her health from the ranks of conservative conspiracy theory to perhaps the central debate in the presidential race over the coming days' [1] SaintAviator lets talk 00:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

For those considering whether to include or not include health information on Clinton following her health event I note Wed Sept 14 2016 News Reports on Clinton's Health: Clinton's doctor says the candidate is recovering well and fit to serve as President of the United States.

Today, Wed Sept 14, 2016 The washington Post reported WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — Hillary Clinton is “recovering well” from pneumonia and remains “fit to serve as President of the United States,” her doctor said in a letter released Wednesday by her campaign. The health details made public by the Democratic presidential nominee included a description of the pneumonia diagnosis Clinton received last week Friday.

Also on the same subject today NPR reported Hillary Clinton's campaign released additional medical information on the Democratic nominee's health Wednesday, a day before she is set to resume campaigning after being diagnosed with pneumonia. A two-page letter from the 68-year-old's personal physician, Lisa Bardack, chair of Internal Medicine at CareMount Medical in Mount Kisco, N.Y., says she is "recovering well with antibiotics and rest" and that Clinton "continues to remain healthy and fit to serve as President of the United States." The rest of her "complete physical exam was normal and she is in excellent mental condition," according to Bardack. Tomandzeke (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The problem I have with this assessment is that it says it comes from HRC's personal doctor. In the same way that we use third-party, not first-party sources, I think only an external doctor (whose bill was not paid for by HRC) would be a reliable source. I actually find it odd that the US government does not conduct their own medical assessments of presidential candidates? Or if they do, why don't they release those records?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
In this case, WaPo is the third-party source. The exam itself could only come from her doctor. And I do not believe there is any government doctor performing exams on presidential candidates. Though that could make some level of sense, there's all of the standard patient's rights stuff that would complicate an idea like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the government should look into this for the next election. I feel sorry for her--she might be healthy--but so many people genuinely don't believe it. I don't think her personal doctor is a reliable source, but if that's all we have, it might make sense to include this info by citing the Washington Post. It still does not mean that what her doctor said is necessarily true, though.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"Collapsed"

@The Four Deuces:, please revert your edit. She didn't collapse, and it's not "paraphrasing" to say she did. It's a BLP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not a BLP violation, although it would be better to explicitly add a source that said this. She was dragged with her feet not moving nor supporting her own weight after being supported by leaning against a pole while someone was bracing her arms for balance. Collapsed is a perfectly valid description of this situation. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
She was helped to the car. She did not collapse. Piers Morgan's inanity notwithstanding. It's a BLP violation to say she "collapsed" when she didn't collapse. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
If "helped" is a euphamism for "dragged" with 3 people supporting her weight, sure. There are multiple angles of video of this. You can see her feet. They are drug along the ground with her toes pointed down. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to see how RS describe it. It could range from 'knees buckled' to 'collapsed'. 'Knees buckled' sounds more accurate based on the existing information. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
ResultingConstant, that is a good compromise. Maybe she did not collapse, but she appeared to. TFD (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
We can look at the sources in the article. "video showed her being supported by aides as they put her into her van", "abrupt, stumbling departure", and "legs buckling". Nothing about "collapsing", which suggests actually losing consciousness. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The sources seem to favor "legs buckled" and "was carried" with "stumbled" and "was helped" in second place. I see no widespread use of "collapsed" or "was dragged". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly my point. We can say something about how her aids helped her into the car, but we can't say some of the things that have been added, like that she "collapsed" or that this is "due to her declining health". Seriously, WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The NYT article says, "A video of Mrs. Clinton taken by an attendee at the ceremony captured what appeared to be her legs buckling as she struggled to steady herself and walk to her van. She required assistance from two Secret Service agents, who held her on either side, to move off a curb and into the van. Close-up images revealed that her feet were dragging as she was hoisted into the vehicle."[2]
Muboshgu disingenously writes, "the word "collapsed" does not appear in either source." Merriam-Webster defines "to collapse": "to break apart and fall down suddenly; to fall down or become unconscious because you are sick or exhausted; or to completely relax the muscles of your body because you are very tired, upset, etc." We are allowed to paraphrase, but as a compromise, I am willing to instead insert the entire NYT quote instead. Would add too that her shoe fell off.
TFD (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I was pretty genuine; assume good faith. No source says she fell down, so you're contradicting yourself with your own definition. That's not a paraphrase; that's WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. We don't need the whole quote, or the shoe. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu, do you think she would have remained 90 degrees to the ground had not her minders held her up? TFD (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. She might have. She might not have. We go with what we know, not what we assume. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of which details the sources choose to convey, and the choice of colorful language they use to convey those details, going into the specific physical manifestations of her illness, and motions of her body in response to the illness, are WP:UNDUE, unencyclopedic, and violate the spirit and possibly letter of BLP. All of these sources are journalistic commentary based on a single video that has emerged. She left a public appearance and cancelled some later campaign appearances due to a bout of pneumonia, that's what's relevant, if anything. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note that while there are RS using "collapsed" [3], a better phrasing might be "near collapse," not merely because it is what it looks like in the video our readers will have seen, but because we have RS like Reuters here: [4] which also uses "nearly fainted".E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Those don't appear to be reliable sources. The Daily Mail sure isn't, and a bunch of the rest were listed as opinion pieces. "Nearly fainted" is better than "collapsed". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      • The Daily Mail is a reliable source. TFD (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Oh no it's not. They consider it a tabloid. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
          • It publishes in "tabloid format," so do the traditional broadsheets, and the Manchester Guardian published in tabloid format in the 1970s. English newspapers are categorized as "broadsheets," "middle market," and "tabloid." The middle market papers are actually tabloid format too - Daily Mail, Express, and The Standard. But English tabloids are not to be confused with U.S. supermarket tabloids, which are not really newspapers, they are magazines. In intellectual quality, the Daily Mail would rate higher than the Post. TFD (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It sure is. These are too. Hillary Clinton appears to collapse. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton appeared to collapse as she became 'overheated' and had to leave early from a September 11 memorial ceremony in New York City. [5]. Australia / NZ biggest media..........its collapsed [6] SaintAviator lets talk 02:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The only sources that say she "collapsed" are from halfway across the world. Local sources receive more weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
No they dont. SaintAviator lets talk 08:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
There's been a lot of descriptive terms used, including collapsing - Google searches for “Hillary Clinton collapsing” spiked after 11 am ET, Clinton collapsing, nearly collapsing, Clinton collapsed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It is an embarrassment to wikipedia that this is all there is reported about the early exit - On September 11, 2016, Clinton abruptly left an event at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum. - globally there are thousands of reports of her collapse, feint, need to be assisted into her vehicle, that there is no mention here is a bit sad really. Users need to be aware that not reporting any issue neutrally at wikipedia does not remove or have any affect on its reality in the global reporting, all that happens is wikipedia is embarrassed and that readers accepted reliability of wikipedia content is diminished beyond your belief. If you refuse to report what the world is reporting you become a joke. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, mentioning the event without mentioning the episode of unsteadiness is pointless. The episode is the only reason this is notable. I'm not going to quibble about the wording, but something has to be included. – Smyth\talk 09:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the section should mention the coughing episode, at least briefly. According to Reuters that was what led to her being diagnosed with pneumonia. FallingGravity 06:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Mrs Clinton plainly collapsed - the video is the source. To describe the incident otherwise is to try and spin what happened. Media sources are secondary, as none gives a first hand account. Also the UK Guardian uses the term. Shtove (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you're making a conclusion based on a WP:PRIMARY source. Secondary sources don't say she "collapsed". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
He's just given you one that does. Or are you saying that newspaper articles are no longer acceptable sources? In which case, we might as well delete this whole article. – Smyth\talk 16:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't notice the link to be honest. I find it interesting that U.S. sources don't use the word "collapsed"; the only ones that do are from the U.K., New Zealand, and Australia. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
(cough)Clinton News Network(/cough). Yes, the more objective sources that don't have a stake in the results of the election say collapsed. I agree :) ResultingConstant (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
"Collapsed" is an absurd word to use. She never hit the ground, and we don't care about what foreign sources say because this article is about an American in America ("fuck, yeah!") -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The term "collapse" has been used by various American sources, such as Boston Globe, International Journal Review, and New York Times (as "apparent collapse"). Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
They're not "more objective", they're "more removed". And suggesting CNN has pro-Clinton bias... the network that pays Lewandowski while Trump still pays him... – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice

  • notifying editors here of a new article, Basket of deplorables, which I will return to expand & source when I get a chance. imho, we could probably also use an article on health issues, clarifying that she is in excellent health despite persistent rumors, detailing the cuncussion thing (healthy people recover from concussions, as Clinton did) and the pneumonia episode (healthy people recover form pneumonia, as Clinton is now doing. But we should have reliable , NPOV information on these topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You should've known better than to create that WP:POVFORK because discussion here isn't moving as quickly as you'd like. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Leap to conclusions much? I have been entirely open. I have created a series of articles about incidents during this campaign season (America (advertisement); Balanced Rebellion; Act of Love (political statement and advertisement)) I created this because the incident is notable; it can and I confidently expect that it inevitably will eventually be linked ot a short statement on this page; including more here would be WP:UNDUE. In addition, as I often argue on other pages, article are far more efficiently created as notable events unfold, because there are so many editors helping out at such moments and because the sources are so easily accessed in the immediate aftermath of impactful events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm shaking my head in disapproval. Bad, bad idea, E.M.G. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Creating this article was silly, and from the looks of it, will likely be deleted as such. TimothyJosephWood 19:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Straw poll: health

So, I see discussion that's petered out, but no actual means of achieving consensus. There's been content added and removed from the page. Should this be included or not? Should any changes be made to it before it's to be included? (I replaced the Newsmax source with CNN, because Newsmax is garbage.) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

On September 11, 2016, Clinton abruptly left an event at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum. A statement from her campaign said she had been suffering from pneumonia, dehydration, and overheating.[1][2][3] After the incident, Clinton stated in a phone interview with Anderson Cooper that her doctor advised to her rest for 5 days before returning on the campaign-trail.[4]

References

  1. ^ Martin, Jonathan; Chozick, Amy (September 11, 2016). "Hillary Clinton's Doctor Says Pneumonia Led to Abrupt Exit From 9/11 Event". The New York Times. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
  2. ^ Tribune, Chicago (September 11, 2016). "Doctor says Hillary Clinton has pneumonia, 'recovering nicely' after 9/11 event". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
  3. ^ "Hillary Clinton Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia - BBC News". BBC News. September 12, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
  4. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/politics/hillary-clinton-health-transparency/
  • include with some mention of collapse/faint/stumble being mandatory. Also the canceling of subsequent campaign events is probably needed. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly, for the moment, this seems to have enough lasting public interest for a brief mention. We can consider removing it or expanding it a week, month, or year from now depending on what if anything comes of it. As an account the first two sentences are mostly fine, except that we don't need to mention dehydration or overheating to tell the reader everything they need to know. Also, as a list, "pneumonia, dehydrating, and overheating" mixes apples and oranges. Pneumonia is a primary symptom of a bacterial infection, whereas dehydrating and overheating are secondary symptoms of pneumonia. Going into the specific physical manifestations of pneumonia and the nature of her doctor's rest advice are all TMI and not particularly relevant. Every time your or I get sick we don't expect to see a Wikipedia account of every ache, pain, or sweat. Politics doesn't play fair, but that doesn't mean we have to be unfair to living individuals. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemon that, if this is to be included, we should omit mention of "dehydration and overheating" - pneumonia covers all of these symptoms. It's like saying someone suffers from "a common cold, runny nose, and sore throat" - common cold covers all of this. Neutralitytalk 17:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely include per Wikidemon, Neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
At 55, Jimmy Carter collapsed after running 6 miles[8] and it was seen as a defining moment of his presidency. And it actually was heat exhaustion and dehydration, caused by running rather than an underlying condition. TFD (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that was a defining moment or a low point. For that you have to go to the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident. Can you imagine the fireworks around here if that happened today? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
This "cover-up" exists only in your (and certain online outlets) imagination. You're sort of making a good case for exclusion. Unintentionally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You cannot deny this has become a Thing, VM. Not only did it receive a decent amount of coverage, but it has indirectly led to both candidates scheduling additional medical releases. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The only way to see if this has any effects on the the campaign is to wait, I am guessing at least six months - "...editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time." [14].---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It has already had multiple documented effects on the campaign. She cancelled multiple campaign events due to her health. She is releasing additional health information. Her numbers in the polls (perhaps coincidentally) took a dive. Poll questions specifically about her health also swung significantly ResultingConstant (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Another effect: Its also bought up her untrustworthiness again [15] SaintAviator lets talk 21:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, Bill Clinton accidently stated that Hillary Clinton has the flu, as covered by Politico and The Hill. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Its a big deal now. [16] SaintAviator lets talk 21:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate all this being pointed out, including the sources. However, to begin with, it looks as though she didn't actually cancel campaign events, it is more like her husband is filling in while she takes a week off to recover [17]. . I'm not seeing any sources that say her numbers in the polls took a dive. And I don't know what does her "releasing health information" mean? That seems rather general and inconsequential. Are there any sources about this - to see if this is consequential?
What do "poll questions specifically about her health" mean? And how does this affect the campaign? Untrustworhiness is covered by an opinion piece - and it this is usually a sentiment generated by those who oppose her candidacy. There are obviously a lot of people who do trust her. In any case, her trustworthiness, is just fodder for the news cycle. This as a "secrecy" issue is a matter of opinion, and let the voters decide in November. Also, Saint Aviator your article (or source) also pointed out its significance in comparison to the following:'

Here’s what that does not mean: It doesn’t mean that the bogus speculation that Clinton was having seizures, based on goofy interpretations of videos, are or were valid. Nor does it mean that there’s any equivalence between Clinton’s excessive secrecy about her health and, say, Trump flirting with white-supremacist backers, praising Vladimir Putin, lying repeatedly, or joking about Clinton being assassinated, to pick a few recent examples at random. Nor does it excuse Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, or the fact that the only thing voters know about the Republican nominee’s health is the farcical letter his doctor released last year.

The turn of events might "force her to release more detailed medical records than the short (though longer than Trump) report she has already released — an ironic outcome". And if that is the only result, then I am not sure releasing those medical records will have an impact. Unless there is something debilitating that shows up. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I specifically pointed out that the poll numbers may be correlated rather than causally related, the relationship has in fact been pointed out. [18][19]. As far as events being cancelled, RS seem to disagree with your interpretation. http://www.npr.org/2016/09/12/493573664/hillary-clinton-diagnosed-with-pneumonia-campaign-events-canceled ResultingConstant (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

From what I have been reading, you are probably correct about events being cancelled. Also, a little dip in the polls this far from November elections is probably par for the course.Steve Quinn (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A bit of context supporting the result here on this straw poll: Most unaffiliated voters believe the state of Clinton’s health is worth exploring, however the majority of Democrats disagree, not surprisingly (POV). [20] SaintAviator lets talk 22:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Cough

Scjessey removed the cough content as "garbage". I assert that it is notable, as is amply demonstrated by the sources. The cough attacks is why she knew she had pneumonia And we should WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE

  • NYT : The episode thrust questions about Mrs. Clinton’s health and the transparency of her campaign squarely into the last two months of the race, which many polls show has grown tighter. For months Republicans have, with scarce evidence, questioned the stamina of Mrs. Clinton, 68, and claimed she is ill, often pointing to her repeated coughing bouts.
  • CNN : Clinton had a cough last week, and chalked it up to allergies -- joking at an event that she was allergic to Trump. She said Monday night she'd thought at the time it was allergies, because she experienced a similar cough in the spring and fall due to seasonal allergies.
  • CNN [21] Hillary Clinton coughs and a nation listens. Apparently, it takes a village to explain a cough. Hillary Clinton's coughing spells along the campaign trail have drawn attention from supporters and opponents alike.
  • Trib : Hillary Clinton had a cough - a nasty, recurring cough that she could not kick after a week of trying.
  • Wapo : Whether Clinton likes it or not, her "overheating" episode comes at a very bad time for her campaign. Thanks to the likes of Rudy Giuliani and a small but vocal element of the Republican base, talk of her health had been bubbling over the past week — triggered by a coughing episode she experienced during a Labor Day rally.
  • Atlantic [22]: Headline It's Not the Cough, It's the Cover-Up. (body) This weekend’s revelation that Hillary Clinton has pneumonia helps explain quite a bit. It explains her persistent cough, and it explains why she had to leave a September 11 commemoration on Sunday.
  • Atlantic [23] When Hillary Clinton Coughs.A coughing spell is fueling right-wing attempts to portray the candidate as weak and frail. Her history suggests otherwise.At a rally in Cleveland on Monday, presidential nominee Hillary Clinton coughed several times. She reached under the podium and grabbed a glass of water, excusing the cough as a consequence of having talked so much. When the cough didn’t immediately go away, she laughed it off as an allergy to thinking about Donald Trump. The episode lasted around 20 seconds.
  • ABC [24] Clinton had a coughing fit while campaigning in Cleveland, and she made a joke about how it was a reaction to Donald Trump."Every time I think of Trump, I get allergic," she said between coughs.Clinton and her aides attributed the cough to seasonal allergies. She told reporters she "upped my antihistamine" and was doing "better." ...It wasn't announced at the time, but Clinton was evaluated by her doctor "during [a] follow-up evaluation of her prolonged cough" and was diagnosed with pneumonia, Clinton's doctor said in a statement on late Sunday afternoon....5:16 p.m. Clinton's longtime doctor, Lisa Bardack, released a statement saying Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday after an examination for her "prolonged cough," which last week the campaign attributed to allergies.
  • NBC [25]
  • NBC [26] The pneumonia diagnosis was made two days ago, according to her doctor, following a widely reported "coughing fit" days earlier, which her team had blamed on "allergies."
  • NBC [27] (Entire article dedicated to cough attack)
  • NPR [28] This comes less than a week after Clinton had a coughing fit at a rally in Cleveland. She said she was suffering from seasonal allergies
  • WAPO [29]
  • LAT [30] Clinton’s personal physician examined her at her home and announced that she was recovering but had been diagnosed with pneumonia two days prior during an evaluation for a prolonged cough.

ResultingConstant (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Exclude individual symptoms. It's trivia and redundant (and thus undue). Saying "pneumonia" is enough because the average reader will know that pneumonia includes the standard symptoms such as coughing, fever, etc.—and if they don't, they can always read our article on pneumonia. If a reader wants to know all of the details relating to Clinton, then he or she can easily go to the references to learn more. We are an encyclopedia, not CNN.
I'll also note that just because something is reported doesn't mean that it's encyclopedic. For example, I could list an impressive array of sources that cover, in substantial detail, the fact that John Kasich ate a slice of pizza with a knife and fork on the campaign trail. (Newsweek, Politico, CNN, Daily News, Daily News Again, ABC News, The Hill, Fox News). Yet this pizza affair, quite properly, does not appear in John Kasich presidential campaign, 2016, nor should it. The same is true in this case. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Eating a slice of pizza does not equal a series of coughing fits. Unlike the prior incident, Clinton's coughing fits were connected to a major, controversial event (eg. reports of pneumonia). Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
A common illness is not a "major, controversial event." Please. Neutralitytalk 03:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The issue is not just about Clinton's pneumonia, the issue is also about trust towards the Clinton campaign and the media. For a while, even suggesting that Clinton is not perfectly well was labeled as a "conspiracy theory", as seen in these news articles prior to this event. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Even if everything that you just wrote was accepted as true (I don't accept your ipse dixit at all), it's entirely irrelevant to what's encyclopedic or not. Despite what a vocal minority of users may wish, we are not going to simply shove anything and everything into the article. Neutralitytalk 04:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I find Neutrality's logic very convincing. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: New York Times had published an article regarding the views of "Pneumonia Experts" in regards to Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial service. Her coughing was connected towards the end of the article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it is garbage. We don't discuss people's bodily functions around here, or conspiracy theories and political attacks about them. That's ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and a POV / BLP issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude this silly, hackneyed, off-topic trivia per WP:NOTSCANDAL. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.- MrX 00:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Except it's not ours. See the reliable third-party sources above.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
See WP:ONUS, WP:STICK, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:REPETITION, and WP:TE.- MrX 00:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sneeze!

Does anyone have any press coverage about her sneezing yet? I think this is important and would be a significant addition to this article - and her bio on Wikipedia as well. Does any one have any coverage of responses, which her sneezes have engendered, such as "Bless you!" or "gesundheit!" or "need a Kleenex?" Steve Quinn (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM WP:SOAPBOX SaintAviator lets talk 03:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Sarcasm is usually not the best way to make the point, but I do agree that if she had a sneezing attack, or a series of burps, or excessive gas, that the health-related conspiracy theories around that would work their way from the alt right press to mainstream coverage, and from there to proponents here on Wikipedia, even if it they turned out to be no more than indigestion or a food allergy. That she exhibited a cough shortly before her pneumonia diagnosis, and that there is speculation about a connection between the two, is no different. There is a lot of speculation here, and a lot of talk of a bodily function, but next to zero substance. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2016
"Balancing aspects" says, "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Does that mean reliable sources provide proper coverage of each aspect? Certainly not. But that is the criterion we use and if you WP:IDONTLIKEIT, get the policy changed. Question: In ten years, why have you never done that? TFD (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Huh? If weight were the only question at hand that would indicate a weight of zero for describing a given human being's various coughs, sneezes, and farts. But we also have policies and guidelines like BLP, POV, relevancy, fringe, NOTNEWS, tabloid, and so on, which also suggest zero coverage. You're welcome to fight the powers that be around here if you don't like those policies, but you'll find some old stalwarts especially around BLP that are rather resistant to rolling things back. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
First, POV says, "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That is almost verbatim what weight says. FRINGE relies on weight - do not give undue weight to fringe views, NOTNEWS relies on weight - do not give undue weight to passing stories, TABLOID relies on rs - do not include stuff not in rs, which weight proscribes, BLP says do not include stuff not in rs, which weight proscribes and relevancy is an article not a guideline or policy. None of your examples in any way change what weight requires and it is really unhelpful to cite polices, etc. without explaing their relevance to the discussion. What for example is in BLP policy that says we should ignore weight? I think what you mean is that we should ignore how reliable sources have covered the topic and present it as you think it should be, because your opinion is far superior to those of mainstream media reporters. TFD (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
What I mean is that the due weight based on the sources is zero AND that this is not burp-and-fart-opedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Bless you!

http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon/afternoon-cartoon-monday-september-12th User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

New addition

I think the portion of this addition[31] beginning "clinton released" goes into too much detail. A doctor's statement about a common illness, and a self-serving pronouncement about being fit to be President, are undue weight, and not really any more encyclopedic than cataloging symptoms. Any thoughts? Can we scale this back? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I would probably stop at bacterial pneumonia. Since I apparently actually have a coworker who thinks she has Parkinson's, the specific diagnosis does seem anecdotally relevant. TimothyJosephWood 21:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the updated statement from the doctor is relevant, since it's a rather authoritative and up-to-date statement from an expert with relevant knowledge. Neutralitytalk 22:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
First, I think what Neutrality has written is succinct and covers the necessary bases for an encyclopedia. Second, consensus opened the door for introducing the pneumonia into the article, so it is only proper to update it with more accurate information, derived from hindsight. Sorry to say, I don't agree this goes into too much details. I don't see her pronounced as fit for president as self-serving. It was the doctor who said it. Clinton didn't say the doctor said it, or the doctor told her. It is accurate and very good way to update this incident. I can't think of anything better to write about it. If anyone has a proposal they are welcome to propose here. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Polls

I ctl + F 'Polls' in the article, a few hits, i.e. 'expectations'. So we could build on it as the election approaches. Notable, longstanding, not BLP sensitive, lots of RS. Trump is closing the gap or ahead in some states. [32] Theres some tension now, [33] SaintAviator lets talk 09:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Polling data is highly volatile at this stage of the election, with many polling organizations switching from registered voter models to likely voter models. The last few elections have been statistically tied, or close to, at this point in the race. Anything we included here would have to be specific to the Clinton campaign, and there's not much material to work with in that arena. The best place to cover election polling is United States presidential election, 2016, which has the freedom to explore the whole picture. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Scjessey that polls are not necessarily the best content we could add (although we could say her pneumonia led to lower poll numbers). But that seems a bit transient to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Polling should be mentioned because it reflects how successful the campaign is and affects what the campaign does. But one would not expect great detail here. I see no reason for example why we should not say that the convention gave Clinton a large boost. As for the point that the two major candidates are normally statistically tied at this point, we could mention that as well because we should always use secondary sources that interpret primary sources. TFD (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
No, we didn't mention polls when Trump was in a slump, and there's no reason to mention them now. Funny, this timing of the proposal. Obvious attempt to push POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

We do in fact mention positive poll results repeatedly throughout the article. But amazingly any negative results are excluded I wonder what the reason for that could be.

  • According to nationwide opinion polls in early 2015, Clinton was considered the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination
  • Clinton has a very high name recognition of an estimated 99% (only 11% of all voters said they did not know enough about her to form an opinion) and according to Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, she has had strong support from African-Americans, and among college-educated women and single women.[28]
  • In national polling, Clinton has enjoyed "the highest level of female support of any candidate in more than four decades," with a 24-point lead in among female registered voters in a Pew Research Center taken on the eve of the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[146] The same polling also showed a 16-percentage point difference in support among women and men, a historically unprecedented gender gap.[146]

ResultingConstant (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a good reason for including each one of these - the polls at the beginning of the campaign, name recognition, and in regard to her being the first female nominee of a major party. Just putting random polls de jour however would clearly violate WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Like I said, where were you when Trump was getting hammered in the polls? Obvious POV is obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
So no objections to the trustworthiness and honesty polls then that are completely absent? Or lack of support of white males? POV runs both ways. yours is just as obvious. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
This has already been discussed (especially the white males narrative). Please see the talk page archive, where you will find a broad consensus not to include such things. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thats my point. Thanks. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Obviously cherry-picking polls would be wrong. That is why we use reliable secondary sources that provide context. Saying that she is weak among white men for example would be wrong unless we are explaining which demographic groups favor her and which do not. Does anyone think that any reasonable scholar would write an article about her campaign without mentioning her relative strength among different demographic groups, or how events in the campaign affected her popularity? Would even Correct the Record write up her campaign ignoring that? TFD (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
We do. Right now this article talks about her strength with women and African Americans. So apparently showing her strengths but not showing her weaknesses is considered neutrality. There are plenty of reliable sources discussing these poll results. [34][35][36][37] ResultingConstant (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Those polls on women and African Americans refer to the primary part of the campaign, which can now be viewed from the historical perspective. General election polling is a very different animal, and it is best covered by United States presidential election, 2016 until the election is over. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hrm, was it a historical perspective 12 months ago? Cause thats when it went into the article. But the sauce is only for the goose again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=681161436 ResultingConstant (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Polls are like the ongoing score during a finals sports match. This article is the 'commentary' on one of the teams 'plays' in that game, so far. Its been a long game, we are in the last quarter. Its close. Trump 42% HC 40% in a recent poll. [38] and here ahead in Iowa [39] and Florida [40]. There are democrat doubts now. Who here ignores the polls? It would round out the article. It should be NPOV. A hard thing to achieve round here and the reason why much is excluded by a few pro HC POV whipping up the crowd. Still we, team neutral imho, got Health in (majority of Repub & non aligned voters want both candidates health explored, 69% of Dems dont want Clintons health explored -why?) so theres hope for NPOV Poll data, even if for some its not what they like. SaintAviator lets talk 22:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's like you just ignored everything I said and then constructed a ludicrous analogy that bears no relationship whatsoever to reality. And now you are peddling a false narrative that you are somehow "neutral" in wanting to shoehorn anything you can possibly find that casts Clinton or her campaign in a negative light. The REALITY is that the polls tightened up because they switched from registered voters to likely voters, and consequently the margins of error are much larger. Also, the numbers you are quoting are national polls, which don't really represent a real view of the outcome of the election, because what counts are the polls of the swing states. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a fancy bit of revisionist word salad. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Google 'swing states Iowa Florida'. See also how 'Polls' engaged you. Its not called a 'contest' or 'Race to the Whitehouse' for nothing. Its a great analogy SaintAviator lets talk 02:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
You are totally missing my point. You would need to provide comprehensive, multi-poll coverage of about a dozen states covering several months for it to be meaningful in any way, and that is way too much detail here. What you are proposing is to include a snapshot that shows Trump looking good. Quelle surprise, mon ami. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No I got your point, but I think you made 6 or so. BTW see Florida / Iowa ARE Swing states. Sighs. If folks dont like the facts then NPOV is hard to achieve. Take Ca. a Key State [41]. Its NPOV facts on the ground with RS ++. Peeps will add more. SaintAviator lets talk 02:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, saying, "WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE and WP:POV.... Obvious POV is obvious" is not helpful unless you explain how these policies relate to the proposed edits. You have a PhD in GMO technology. If you get into an argument with fellow scientists, do you write, "MCSHEA&BRANDON'" "CELL THEORY," "LIFE EVOLVES." and expect your learned colleagues will bow to your argument from authority, or do you think they might want to know what these laws have to do with your argument? TFD (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

As Scjessey already pointed out most of it, so there's no need to repeat it. Polls fluctuate and change frequently. There are good polls and there are crappy polls. There are polls of likely voters, polls of registered voters and there are polls of everyone with a cell phone. There are online polls and there are in person polls. There are the polls themselves - which are primary sources - there is discussion of polls and then there's meta analysis of analysis of polls. Seriously, if you wanted to included polls, you should have discussed what is the proper way of including them in an article such as this MONTHS ago, preferably before the race started. You (that's a general "you") didn't. Because "you" didn't want to include polls when they showed that Trump's campaign was a dumpster fire. Now Trump's polling has improved so all of sudden certain editors on this talk page have become very interested in including polls in this article (come to think of it, sort of like Trump himself who calls polls "rigged" or "faked" when they show him losing but then loves them and retweets them when they're favorable to him, even if it's the same damn polling organization and methodology). Including polls was UNDUE and POV back when he was losing and it's still UNDUE and POV now when the polling has tightened. THAT is NPOV. That is consistency. It's really up to you to explain why now, of all times, all of sudden, we're going to decide to include day to day polls in the article.
Sorry, no go. This is just too transparent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
(and btw, if I had an argument with fellow scientists, I would write something like "Smith (1997), Tan (2004) and Rogers and Fluffy (2014)" and yes, expect them to understand what I'm talking about and bow to it) Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem with polling is that you basically have two choices: (1) Don't have it in the article at all, or (2) Cover the hell out of it with multiple polls, over long periods of time, covering both swing states and the national picture, including explanations of polling methods (landline, cell, internet, registered, likely et al). Option 1 is the only way to go within this scope of this article, which is specific to the Clinton campaign. You could talk in generalities, such as "tightening polls", "slumping in the polls", "polling strongly" if such language is there in reliable sources and there is appropriate context, but as soon as you do that you have to remember that you are only going to be looking at a snapshot, which has immediate neutrality and scope problems. That is why exclusion of polling data is preferable until post-election analysis becomes available. Some polling experts are already beginning the work, with Nate Silver referring to the polling as a sine wave, because of the ebb and flow of the numbers. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


When posting, propose specific language

I'm seeing a lot of unfocused discussion on this page. It would be exceedingly helpful if editors on this talk page, instead of posting "Why don't we include X?" or "Why don't we mention Y?"-style comments, suggest specific wording with citations. The more specific postings are, the more focused the discussion will be; we would have altogether less rambling, arguing, and meandering discussion. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; WP:NOTFORUM. Neutralitytalk 04:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion has taken the same route of Health / Deplorables pre Rfcs. No surprise there. Sharp focus. 1/ Short brief NPOV language Poll section showing the general trend, say weekly, of 4 way polling from here [42] or 2/ Inserts of Poll snippets in existing texts like HCs ratings dropped post 9/11 stagger swaying drag thing (whatever) or 3/ A combo of 1 & 2. Comment / Suggestions? SaintAviator lets talk 07:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, specific edit proposals are needed and comments written in coherent English would help also. I suggest that that these rambling threads be quickly archived when it's obvious they are going nowhere.- MrX 12:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Light blue logo variant

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

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

Campaign book, Stronger Together

Obvious consensus not to mention the book
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think we should mention Clinton and Kaine's campaign book, Stronger Together, but I am not sure where. Perhaps we could start a small section. The New York Times reports that it's "sold just 2,912 copies" even though "Both Mrs. Clinton and her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, have promoted the book on the campaign trail". The Week calls it "a certifiable flop by the publishing industry's standards".Zigzig20s (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably in the platform section, since that is what it is about. You need to say something about the book, other than that no one read it. Do you know if they are planning any book tours? TFD (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
include, no brainer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I think they may be trying to sell it at rallies. Can anyone find a reliable third-party source to confirm this please? I have no idea what's in it.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a campaign book (as pointed out by ZigZig20s), which means it is functionally equivalent to an election manifesto. It simply lays out Clinton and Kaine's policy positions in an easy-to-read book form. It's not intended to be a best-selling tome by any stretch of the imagination. 99% of the extremely limited coverage of this book is coming from right wing newspapers and blogs trying to pretend it is a failed blockbuster, or some such bullshit. The NYT only mentions it because it covers all such releases. The existence of the book, or how many copies it has sold, is not at all notable. It's only use to this article is that it might perhaps have value as a primary source, but I doubt it, since the same information is available on the campaign website. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Have we ever included a campaign book on a campaign page? I don't think we have or should. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Trump's campaign book, Crippled America has its own article. Why should we be unfair to Clinton and ignore hers? Let's treat them as equals.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's not and say we did. Is there no derogatory information about Clinton too trivial to propose here? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
We are not responsible for the fact that only 2,912 copies have been sold. We should not actively try to hide negative information. This Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a campaign ad. Facts are facts.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Crippled America is not a campaign book the way Stronger Together is. The proper analogue to CA is Hard Choices. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
No, Crippled America is most definitely a campaign book. Hard Choices was about her years as Secretary of State. (I have read both books.) Besides, Hard Choices was published a whole year before she launched her campaign for president. The campaign book is Stronger Together. (I haven't read it, but it looks like not many people have.)Zigzig20s (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
What I meant by "campaign book" is the book that a candidate writes and publishes just before they kick off their campaign. See also this and this. The campaign pamphlet book is irrelevant. There really is no detail too small for you to try to use against Hillary Clinton is there? I really don't think these pages impact the election in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. We're supposed to add something to this article precisely because it is not notable? We're considering enough trivial proposals on this page as it is. Let's put this one to bed, it's pointless. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It's the campaign book. It's not trivial. As User:Fred Bauder said, its inclusion should be a "no brainer".Zigzig20s (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
And how many people have said no because it's trivial? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Do we really need another RfC to include this? The book is about the campaign, was published by the campaign, talks about the campaign platform. This Wikipedia article is about the campaign. The key word here is campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
No, we really don't need another RfC to know that a pamphlet book listing core principals, and not meant to be a best seller, not being a best seller, doesn't get included here. If you do start another RfC, I think we'd need to go to arbitration to talk about taking away your editing privileges on this page because of your WP:TE. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not our fault if no one is reading her campaign book, and reliable third-party sources are relaying that fact-based information. I do think it would be NPOV to add facts to this article. Facts are neutral, and not "derogatory". But I have no intention to waste my time on another RfC, so please tone down the idle threats. Having said that, this is not PRpedia for Clinton.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
That wasn't an idle threat, it was a promise. We don't add everything with a third-party source because that's untenable, and either you don't realize that, or you do but still want to push anything with a perceived anti-Hillary POV. We do not work as PR for HRC, or for Trump, or against either. Your approach is tiresome. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I am happy to discuss "pro-Hillary" content if you see any. I just follow the campaign by reading reliable third-party sources, and I volunteer my time to improve this article here. Please assume good faith and make Wikipedia welcoming.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not a violation of WP:AGF when I simply point out that everything you've done on this talk page is promote views that are anti-Hillary in some way or another. She's back on the campaign trail in NC today, maybe we add something about what she said there. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I just have not come across much pro-Hillary content in reliable third-party sources. I don't control what they publish. Happy to discuss pro-Hillary content if it comes up. But that's not mutually exclusive.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It is true enough that third-party sources are more interested in writing anti-Hillary and anti-Trump pieces than pro-Hillary or pro-Trump pieces. All the more reason for us to be balanced on what we do and do not include. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • First, Clinton and Kaine almost certainly did not manage to collaboratively write a 288 page book in the middle of a campaign in the time since Kaine was selected. So this is likely written by some poor staffer. Second, this seems like an exceedingly trivial detail, and I agree with those above that being exceedingly non-notable does not bestow some type of notability. Probably best to pick your battles on this one. TimothyJosephWood 20:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I doubt Trump wrote Crippled America. But that's just the nature of campaign books.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
He didn't even write The Art of the Deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The book has not been shown to have a significant impact on anything. This means it is not notable. It's significant historical value is doubtful, but such value has not been expressed by any qualified persons or journalists. This could not happen right now anyway, since it has only been out since September 6th. Maybe 150 years from now, historians will note the profound insights that it provides - but at this moment in time, I can't see that happening.
So, since it is not notable now, and historical significance is either doubtful or can't be determined, coverage of this does not belong in the article. Also, as noted above - "Hard Choices" is more insightful than this. As noted by the NYT article (above) " Mrs. Clinton’s more revealing 2003 memoir, 'Living History,' about her years in the White House, sold about six times as many copies in its first week as ' Hard Choices.'" --Steve Quinn (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes but both books have nothing to do with her campaign! Those books are off topic, contrary to Stronger Together.::Zigzig20s (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The LA Times seems to have taken the bait on this one, but I think they've got the gist of it. The book seems fairly evidently something to be read and regurgitated by the media, rather than something intended to fly of shelves. It also seems fairly evidently intended to be a prop to contrast the two candidates. Quoting the LA Times title: "Clinton has enough policy to fill a book, while Trump has said little about how he'd govern". Ten to one odds this comes up in exactly this framing during the debate. TimothyJosephWood 21:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Adding to that, Clinton, again from the LA Times: "'We have this old-fashioned idea that if we’re asking you to support us for president, we ought to tell you what we’re going to do,' Clinton told a crowd at a rally in North Carolina last week. 'Not just bluster. Not just empty words. Not just demagogic rhetoric. Real plans.'" So again, they're using the book as a prop, not as any actual plea for people to buy it or read it. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think they have read Crippled America. It is very thorough (which surprised me, given how the media keep telling us the opposite). But this is simply a quote from Clinton trying to distract from her own campaign book by attacking her opponent--pure PR--not facts. By contrast, the sales numbers are facts.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

ResultingConstant (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The book came out like 72 minutes ago so why don't we hold off a bit, eh? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I checked on Amazon. It was released on September 6th.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
And in the above linked LA Times piece, the book is only barely mentioned, and not until 3/4s of the way in. In other words, it's not significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
OK that's fine. We can ignore The New York Times. I don't have time to argue endlessly. Other editors can spend more time on this, but I won't.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You're done, then? We can close this thread as a proposal that has not gained consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend asking User:The Four Deuces and User:Fred Bauder if they still think the campaign book is irrelevant to her campaign first, out of respect.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Support either of the pinged editors closing should they see fit. Noted: Someone other than the three (four?) of us should close the thread. TimothyJosephWood 23:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
As was stated before, pinging in this manner is canvassing WP:CANVAS, and inappropriate. But hey why follow policies and guidelines - when you don't think you have to? Steve Quinn (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
They're at the top of this very thread. It seems appropriate to ask them if they want this to be closed. Otherwise, there would be no consensus to close it, and it would be arbitrary. Personally, I think the campaign book is relevant to the campaign, but I am too tired to argue that Wikipedia rests on reliable third-party sources. Let the other editors decide.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Nice spin, there! And a rationalization combined with a justification, designed to circumvent policies and guidelines. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
No. It is what it is. Let the other editors have their say before you decide to close this. It's not about me or you. It's about improving content. I am too tired for this; please stop talking to me, unless it's about content to improve the article. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I should note that HRC mentioned the book during the first debate last night, making this even more WP:DUE.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Called it. TimothyJosephWood 12:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

New Clinton Controversy

Predictably vanished from the media
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Not controversial at all, because she's absolutely correct. People on the extreme left and extreme right are whack jobs. And by "leaked", you mean "hacked", and she never used the term "basement dwellers" at any time (only right-wing The Week uses it in their opinion piece), and use of the word "revealed" indicates a POV being pushed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
How is this not a leak? Nobody has heard these statements before except for her donors. Hacking was the method used in leaking the audio files. Also, I have corrected the term from "basement dwellers" to "living in their parents' basement", as this term was used by those who have opposed Clinton's comments. Thank you very much for pointing that out Scjessey. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not a "controversy" at all. I really don't understand why you have even brought this up. It's certainly not notable in any conceivable way. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I get that it's silly season with HRC, but we really need to make sure we don't lose sight of what it takes to become a "Clinton controversy". Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster? That hits all the notes. A failed real estate venture with a name similar to "Watergate"? Check. Her secret emails killed Americans at Benghazi? Sure. This, on the other hand? Really doesn't get even close to the term "controversy". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
First, she's sympathizing with Bernie supporters, despite the clickbait headlines on the Week and Politico (which I believe changed its headline later). If it's to be included, the quote should be presented in its entirety rather than just add out-of-context snippets. That said, as with other news stories that pop up, we should wait and see whether it has legs. If this innocuous audio recording turns into a big thing, then include it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I just read the Politico piece. "Children of the Great Recession" who are "living in their parents’ basement" not because they're some sort of trolls but because nobody can afford anything anymore (unless they're in the 1%). And talking about how she's not far-left or far-right. What's the "controversy" here? Because as I said above, this really doesn't hit any of the notes of a true "Clinton controversy". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
To me, this sounds like her "Basket of deplorables" remark. But I agree that she needs to explain what she meant--it is unclear. So it may be too early for inclusion. However, we could add some context: most millennials support Gary Johnson, as Bill Maher said a few days ago.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
"Most millennials" don't support Johnson, they support Clinton. Maher needs to be fact-checked too. Here's a source from two weeks ago (most recent one I could find in a ten second search: "Clinton leads Trump 48 to 23 among likely millennial voters, according to the survey conducted by left-leaning NextGen Climate ... Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who garnered 13 percent, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who had eight percent support."[43] Johnson polls best among millennials, but he doesn't lead among them. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. You could be wrong. Which poll was Maher using?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I just saw the part of his episode with Sarah Silverman where he quotes the number, but I didn't catch a source. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it's referencing this one, where Clinton is above Johnson, but not by much. The best way to look at polls is through an aggregator; one poll can be an outlier, but all together they provide a generally constant (and accurate) picture. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Like most millennials, I youtubed it. I doubt he would admit that HRC is lagging behind if she weren't, so it must be true, but obviously we'd need to find out which poll he was quoting.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
HRC isn't lagging behind. According to the above she is ahead of both Johnson and Trump. It seems to me, when this week is assessed, it will show that HRC is well ahead of both, mostly due to the debate, and partly due to Trumps continual missteps [44] - such as taking the bait rather focusing on future "presidential" issues.Steve Quinn (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
You may be wrong. Bill Maher suggests she is lagging behind.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is a very interesting CBS News piece about the increased number of presidential polls this year and how they work (on the CBS site) - "Inside the process of presidential surveys". These are characterized as reputable (or high quality) surveys or polls, which they seem to be . Steve Quinn (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The best approach is to present Clinton's comments along with commentary on why some thing she expressing empathy for Sanders' supporters and others who see the remarks as callous. You can listen to the full section at "Hillary Clinton Leaked Audio Calling Bernie Sanders Supporters Losers & How to Target Them for Votes". TFD (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The best approach is NOT to include trivial crap just to push a POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Trump has made this a campaign issue. I also think the Twitter hashtag is fairly significant. CNBC compares it to her "Basket of deplorables" remark, by the way.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) She didn't call them "losers". HRC is clearly talking about how shitty the economy is for students graduating with a heavy debt load and poor job prospects. In other words, she's totally on point. We don't include everything a candidate says with this dumb "false equivalence" thing. These comments do not reach the threshold for inclusion by a long shot. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, the best approach is to not present it at all. It's not notable or even controversial. The only reason it got any traction on Twitter is because a couple of media outlets misquoted Clinton and said "basement dwellers", which is outrageously bad journalism designed to get clicks. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The best approach is not to leave out anything that could make Clinton look bad, but to present things she says that attract media attention along with reactions, including from the Clinton campaign. I think that Scjessey comments above ("she's absolutely correct. People on the extreme left and extreme right are whack jobs.") are and interesting defense. Do you know if any of her surrogates are publicly saying that? TFD (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
No, we don't include everything "she says that attract media attention along with reactions". That would be untenable. We put in things that are important and don't add things that aren't. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
What is important is what attracts media attention, per WP:NPOV, not necessarily what her supporters consider to be important. "Hillary Clinton" related articles do not operate under a separate set of policies. TFD (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The policy I'm most considering at this moment is WP:WEIGHT, and this is undue. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
WEIGHT is part of NPOV. But the relevant section is "Balancing aspects", which says an article "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." (WP:WEIGHT is about opinions, not facts.) Both sections say that weight is determined by reliable sources, not by what editors consider to be important, and neither provide for separate rules for Hillary Clinton related articles. TFD (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
This audio comes from the hack, which isn't mentioned at all in this article. Now adding this audio violates WEIGHT. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I never suggested we add the audio file, merely that the article should represent all information, both positive and negative, that reliable sources consider important. If the Clinton campaign thinks that leaked information is inadmissible in news reports, then they can change the law after the election. I don't know why you think the audio is hacked anyway. You said "she's totally on point." Perhaps one of her supporters leaked the audio in order to show how empathetic she is. TFD (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
You're suggesting we use the contents of the audio, same thing. It's not a major campaign issue, and I doubt it'll become one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
No different thing. We mention what was said as reported in reliable secondary sources, we do not listen to tapes and write out transcripts. We rely on reliable sources to determine what is relevant and what is accurate, unless you think we should use a different standard. TFD (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
This is silly. No, not includable based on current sourcing, and it does not appear to be a controversy. Give it a few days, as this is in today's NOT NEWS cycle. In the unlikely event that anyone is still talking about it a few days from now we can take stock and see what it means and whether it's relevant and of due weight for the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
TFD, other sources say the audio is from someone hacking emails or something like that. This is how we know it is from a computer hacker turning this over to a conservative leaning website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs)
I am suggesting that we use what reliable secondary sources have said about the audio. It is not our role to question what the news media chose to report but to summarize it. If you think the mainstream media are biased against Clinton, then take it up with them. TFD (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
If you are referring to me, I don't think the mainstream media is being biased about this. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I also appreciate you providing a link so I could hear the recording first hand. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the audio recording, first, I think overall this is not different from her overall message during the primaries, if I remember correctly. I am pretty sure she said more than once, the goals for the next president should be more realistic. From what I could tell, Bernie was advocating making changes that could only occur over the period of one or two generations.
Was Bernie intending this to happen during the span of one presidential tenure? This I don't know. My point is, Clinton contrasted her message by advocating achievable or more realistic goals during the tenure of the next presidency. So, this is not really at variance with her message. Also, she and Bernie just publicly announced they are going to work toward free tuition in state colleges (public universities).
This is a progressive dream come true. Also, they announced changes were going to happen with student financing. If there is implication that she is not allied with the progressive movement this would be incorrect. I think if we look we will see that her "campaign" speeches, at some time or other, includes progressive elements. So, there is nothing negative about this audio.
And I recall, just before all the press coverage focused on the primary, it was covering this very issue. Students are graduating with bachelor's degrees as part of the "American Dream"; and they end up underemployed because the jobs aren't, or weren't, out there. So at the time of this audio, this was probably a hot issue in the press. Sorry for the long post. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The reason why this has become a controversy and a campaign issue is that the media and voters feel this is yet another example of an apparent discrepancy between her public speeches in front of everyday Americans and what she tells the donor class behind closed doors. This may be a misguided impression, but this is a template of her entire campaign. This explains her high level of untrustworthiness--which, again, may be wrong (she may be lovely), but that's how people feel.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
That's your opinion and original research. Actually this has NOT "become a controversy and a campaign issue", except in some parts of the far-right media.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Trump has made it a campaign issue. And #BasementDwellers is trending like there's no tomorrow.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
We don't add every single thing from every single 24 hour news cycle. We've gone over this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I was out and about yesterday and missed the brouhaha; so far it looks like a non-story. A Google search of "basement dwellers" just now resulted in a few stories saying "no, she didn’t". Breitbart and RT have "basement dwellers" in their headlines, but naturally no quote in the text because - well, she did’t say that or anything negative, and even Breitbart didn’t manage to put much of a negative spin on the non-story. You can listen to the entire tape on Soundcloud. The remarks in question start around minute 24:00. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

OMG THIS IS RIDICULOUS. This is a total non story. Clinton did not say "basement dwellers", but the use of the term by right-wing media organizations supporting Trump has apparently convinced some idiots that it is an actual thing. Read the actual text of what Clinton said, and it doesn't differ from what she said in her primary stump speeches. And Zigzig20s, what is "trending" (driven by the hordes of deplorables, no doubt) has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I think we may need to come up with objective guidelines for what is a campaign issue and what's not. Calling those who disagree with you idiots or deplorables is neither objective nor operative. I agree with the editors who believe this has become a campaign issue, but apparently others do not.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not calling fellow editors "idiots" in my previous comment. I am calling the people who fell for the right-wing media clickbait idiots. It is possible the two groups intersect, but that is not my problem. But to reiterate, Clinton was SYMPATHIZING with millennials, not denigrating them. Right-wing media FALSELY accused her of denigrating millennials and calling them "basement dwellers". Certainly there is nothing in this "story" that is related to the Clinton campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
A candidate says something, it gets leaked, his or her opponents take it out of context, his or her supporters explain what he or she meant. That's what U.S. presidential campaigns are. And there is no reason for us to listen to the tape and argue over what she meant. We should just present how the media has covered it, per neutrality and no original research. TFD (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
No, the discussion is important because it helps to determine the WP:WEIGHT of an issue, much in the same way as SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. I think it is clear that the "deplorables" comment had ZERO significance with the Clinton campaign, which this article is about, but perhaps had some influence on Trump's base (the aforementioned deplorables). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The test is not the "significance to the Clinton campaign," but "to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." WP:WEIGHT btw is about how to present opinions, not facts, which are covered under "Balancing aspects". When one argues a brief before the Supreme court, one needs to refer to the actual text in legislation and explain how it relates to the issue at hand, rather than just cite the title of act. In the "deplorable" example, by your own admission it may have had some influence on Trump's base, which presumably you believe because of its extensive coverage in reliable sources, which would require its mention in this article. The "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" comment in the 1988 VP debate had no significance to the United States presidential election, 1988, yet rightfully is mentioned in the article because of the coverage it received. TFD (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
You are making my point for me. The "basement dwellers" construct was a fiction created by unreliable sources. The real comments received very little coverage at all, so it would be undue weight to explore it here. Anyway, I think it is clear from the comments above that there is little appetite to include this. Shop it around at the Trump article if you feel you must. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
She did not say "basement dwellers," she said, "And they are living in their parents' basement." By all means let's quote her correctly. "To dwell" btw is a synonym for "to live." TFD (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are making my point for me. Virtually all the media coverage has come from the false statement that Clinton said "basement dwellers", which riled up The Deplorables. Her actual words have received little coverage, because they were not controversial at all. Ergo, it belongs in the Trump article (if anywhere). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Lloyd Bentsen's debate moment still resonates almost 30 years later. "Basement dwellers" seems to have already been forgotten. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
That's just it: "The media" hasn't covered it because it was and is a non-story. What are your reliable sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign/Archive_6&oldid=1083938428"