Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

What is encyclopaedic information on electoral results?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikileaks

Unproductive Discussion/Ceaseless personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I recall a long discussion of Wikileaks on Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 43, where the rough summary of divergent opinions was "this has become a significant issue for Hillary's campaign but it does not carry enough weight to include in the biography covering her entire life." However I see no mention even on this campaign article of the various Wikileaks waves which targeted the candidate and her entourage, despite wide-ranging reporting and analysis in the press. I don't have any particular suggestions on what to include but it is certainly puzzling that the encyclopedia is silent about those leaks which turned out to be a major campaign issue (regardless of the impact they may have had on the election outcome). Please discuss. — JFG talk 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC) It's baffling. The WikiLeaks and Podesta Emails played an enormous role in her campaign. They absolutely dominated her coverage in the final few months of her campaign. There seems to be a handful of activist editors who are sanitizing all pages related to the DNC and the corruption of Hillary Clinton, and it appears something needs to be done to bar these users from editing and violating WP:POV and WP:DUE until their emotions cool down. This section needs to be added immediately, along with the ongoing Clinton Foundation scandal, and several other scandals that have been scrubbed from this page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Once again, the word corruption should not be used. There is simply no evidence of corruption and this is an accusation against a living person. And the word scandal is used twice in this edit. This editor's constant attempts to paint a living person in this manner is unacceptable. Further, the use of the words "activist editors" and "emotions" are personal attacks against other editors as well as AGF vios. These attacks have been leveled by this editor for weeks. Objective3000 (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Agreed. Hidden Tempo should stop with the constant BLP violations immediately. WP:NOTSCANDAL talks about how inappropriate it is to do scandal mongering. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Referring to a scandal as a scandal is not "scandal mongering." If I post a link to the Watergate scandal, am I scandal-mongering? No. We must be mindful to follow WP:SPADE. In order for a BLP violation to have taken place, one would not be able to find multiple RS that refer to the Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy/FBI investigation as a scandal (instead, it would just be rumors and gossip). But, of course there is. This goes for the Donna Brazile advance debate questions "controversy," the WikiLeaks scandal, and other events that aren't scandals that should be included on this page. Speaking of AGF violations, why is that every time someone brings up including an obvious controversy/scandal on Hillary's page, a Hillary supporter climbs out of the woodwork and immediately starts screaming about "sanctions," and "BLP violations"? It's very disruptive and hurts the improvement of this article. I am not singling out any one person in general, but I think both Objective3000 and Scjessey have been participants in this article long enough to have at least witnessed multiple attempts to shut down these improvements and threaten these editors. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC) There is no Clinton Foundation scandal. Donna Brazile is not Hillary Clinton. I did not vote for Hillary Clinton. Over 30 people were sentenced in the Watergate scandal, including a large number of top officials. Comparing the Clinton Foundation, where no crimes have even been alleged by any law-enforcement agency, to Watergate is outrageous. I have never seen anyone threaten you; but I have seen you threaten other editors for simply improving the article. Just because people disagree with your opinions does not mean they are paid by the DNC or far left-wing activists as you have claimed. You keep adding to your violations. Objective3000 (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC) There is no Clinton Foundation scandal...in the opinion of Objective3000, and it's important to be as clear as possible. The reason for this is that The LA Times, Newsweek, and other RS disagree with you. Again, I'm not singling out any one person in general (which includes you), so no need to reveal your voting patterns on this page. I understand that you haven't seen the threats issued my way, but I have had numerous former Hillary supporters threaten me with sanctions and call for my "t-banning" for having a differing viewpoint than their own. I also have never threatened anyone. For you to say that without providing a quote is disingenuous, repulsive, and a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:APR. Anyway, whether or not one believes Hillary is guilty of any crimes relating to the alleged bribery/pay-for-play/public corruption FBI investigation is irrelevant. It was the second most often alleged crime that surfaced during her campaign, and it needs to be added to the controversies subsection. Immediately...in my opinion! Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC) It's time for you to stop POV pushing. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to engage in advocacy. Write a blog, or something. You are just regurgitating the same bullshit over and over again, and it is going to lead nowhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Please stop with the ad hominem attacks. The only word concerning content in your comment is "bullshit". We all have a POV, yourself included. For the sake of clarity, in this particular case, I do not agree with your POV (that there should be no mention of the extensive Clinton Foundation reporting during the campaign in RS) though few will be flooding to read this article now. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC) As such, it might be wise to leave it as is, so that the control exerted by Wikipedian "consensus" during the election can be more clearly seen in years to come, don't you think? SashiRolls (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Please stop with the ad hominem attacks. Disagreement is fine. Personal attacks are not. Objective3000 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Yes, ad groupinem arguments are better, especially as a member of the groupinem in question, (i.e. the groupinem of pledged Wikipedia volunteers volunteering cf. pledged group / fraternity terror / etc.). SashiRolls (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC) @ SashiRolls - Hidden Tempo has been unable to demonstrate any ability to contribute objectively since appearing on Clinton-related pages just recently. The editor has now reached Zigzig20s-levels of obstructionism and outright advocacy, and it is no longer possible for any reasonable editor to assume good faith. The comment of mine that you object to is a reasonable response to the near constant insinuations that some of us are leftist Clinton operatives, or whatever nonsense nomenclature the editor happens to favor on a given day. All we ask for is for policy-based suggestions for improving the article, not stuff like "a handful of activist editors who are sanitizing all pages related to the DNC and the corruption of Hillary Clinton" (attack on other editors and BLP vio in the same sentence!) and "Hillary supporters" all the damn time. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Good faith or otherwise, the editor is either in advocacy mode or so determined to state their opinions that they're adding a lot of noise. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Thank you SashiRolls. I have called for an end to personal attacks on this page numerous times, to no avail. I thought I was beginning to go crazy, and thought that perhaps it was my edits that were disruptive and "nonsense." Let me be clear: there is no "POV pushing" on my end. If you read my edit carefully, Wikidemon and others will see that the only opinions I've voiced are ideas to try to improve the article, completely void of my personal opinions of Hillary Clinton. My only "advocacy" is for improving the article. I honestly don't care about WP:PAID problems, here. But, as I think most will readily admit, the fact that two enormous campaign issues are totally erased from this article is curious, to say the least. Even more bizarre is the fact that multiple editors have fiercely obstructed any efforts to open a post-election RfC and to resolve these issues. As far as the profanity-laced accusations, attacks, and continuing WP:OWN and WP:BITE issues from Scjessey go, I am going to take the high road and cease my attempts at healthy discussion with this user. Hopefully, he will climb out of the gutter and extend me the same courtesy. One more note: it's shameful what happened to Zigzig20s. I scanned some of his posting history, and the way his attempts to restore neutrality to this article were treated is truly unfortunate and not what the Wikipedia mission is all about. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC) HT, it would be better if you called an end to the nonsense you are bringing to the talk page — and, though I have not checked, anywhere else on the encyclopedia you are playing this game. If you truly intend to take the high road, as you put it, then stop making broadside accusations against other editors, stop using talk pages as a soapbox to bash political operatives, and start proposing or making some good-faith, well-supported edits to the encyclopedia. If you are in fact sincere, which I question given your game playing here, you seem to be lost. If you truly want to participate, you can do so without all of this, whatever your personal political convictions. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Right, WD, surely you don't think that attacking the edits of other contributors as "nonsense" will lead to anything positive. But you have attacked me personally, as well as my edits numerous times. I have also made several attempts to edit the article to eliminate POV and DUE issues, but was met with instantaneous reversions (one of which only "LOL" was given as a reason). Instead of attempting to patronize and belittle your fellow contributors as "lost," "playing games" or using various other insults on multiple articles, I think it would be far more beneficial and productive to focus on improving the article. So, assuming you agree with this statement, let's move on from these petty little tiffs and focus on helpful discussions. MelanieN and myself are engaged in a productive discussion on adding the Clinton Foundation controversy, and it's going well so far, if you would like to join in. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC) If you're ready to go beyond the nonsense get with the program finally, sure. What's your proposal? I'll look for it. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Well, judging by that little zinger, it looks like you're not ready to talk with the grown-ups yet. For that reason, I won't provide you with the link, but I'll give you a hint: it's on this page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Okay, I almost forgot the piece of idiocy you refer to about me being in college. You're a bad actor here and have shut down this discussion. Please get off this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC) This discussion has been contaminated by personal attacks and incivility, but to place the blame solely at my fault is disingenuous and grossly unfair. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Analysis of Loss

I notice that the same tendency is still prevalent on this page to delete anything that is not part of the official HRC approved story of why she lost: sexism, racism, Bernie Bros, HRC's right wing conspiracy theory, etc. I notice that nowhere on this page is there any mention of the super predator comments which led to a book being published and run serially in the Jacobin in the weeks prior to the election (Super Predator: Bill Clinton's Use and Abuse of Black America) [1], [2], [3], etc. No mention of the Clinton Foundation scandal (not even the 'Vox' article claiming that the scandal was "bullshit" as one of our WP:GRYPHONs likes to claim, cf. [4], Explaining it all to you: The Persistence of Vox); no mention of the mainstream media pundits' utter failure to cover what was really happening; no mention of the collateral damage of the various smear campaign strategies that backfired; no mention of the Standing Rock Sioux protesting outside her office in Brooklyn or the criticism from Bill McKibbon in the LA Times concerning her ignoring DAPL... It's as if the same pundits who steered us wrong during the election -- by telling us what was or wasn't a "nothing burger" -- don't want anyone to know why their strategy mirrored the losing strategy of the campaign... SashiRolls (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

See also the 7 articles from the WP:MAINSTREAM press on the Clinton's role in Haiti collected by the Brooklyn based Haitian Times [5] (back in March already...).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the changes in American journalism and media in the 16-odd years since Wikipedia's founding, and the 12 years of the WP:RS guideline, there is a point to be made that the English Wikipedia's distinction of sources as reliable or not reliable, and between mainstream and niche, may no longer reflect encyclopedic reality. Even the most centrist, popular, websites like CNN that fit RS to a T can fly off the rails in their political coverage. However, neither this article nor RS are the places where that will be resolved. Jimbo's talk page is a village square for some, but it is a long way from there to a seismic shift in sourcing policy. Michael Moore and other activists (proposed here as sources for his analysis of Clinton's defeat), editorials, original research, personal opinion and advocacy all have a place in political discourse, but as an encyclopedia we simply have no good way to filter the valuable from the useless (or worse), and no mechanism to reach consensus on it. As such, RS is what we're stuck with unless we as a community come up with something better. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I would argue that when Michael Moore is cited in The Guardian, Le Monde, and on Democracy Now! in a period of 3 days (7th-9th November) talking about a WP:om Brexit, after having been previously cited in Slate (October was the deleted ref I think)... that makes it notable and con-sensual and quite clearly makes it pass the RS test. SashiRolls (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Election results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I figured out the color-shaded state map and that the shading is based on election night results which are outdated in many instances (just in case: all absentee and provisional ballots count and are counted, never mind what you have heard or seen on some social media). I replaced it with the population-adjusted cartogram from the main article on the election; it probably won't change when all counting and recounting is done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Cool cartogram! (Also has the added benefit of showing that on this page it was necessary to change the traditional representation of the US in order to explain HRC's loss.) But that's fine, if that's what the Wikipedian consensus is, it is a cool map. SashiRolls (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation

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

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

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

We already had an RfC over this, and the policy-based arguments clearly showed how inappropriate it was to include such material. There isn't a scintilla of proof that the activities of the Clinton Foundation in Haiti had any impact on the campaign. In fact, there hasn't actually been any public statement that the Clinton Foundation did anything wrong in Haiti at all. I understand some people on the extreme right like to label anything related to the Clinton Foundation, or emails, or Benghazi, or [insert myriad Nothing Burgers over the last 30 years here] as "scandals", but there's never really been any evidence to support those labels. And yet again, I must insist that instead of just nebulously insisting your favorite fauxtroversy should be included, suggest some actual text and let editors weigh in on it. We have dozens of editors here and we don't need yet another RfC unless meaningful discussion has completely stalled. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus. This is textbook WP:TEND with a healthy slice of passive aggressive pie. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Folks, please stop the name-calling and focus on the proposed wording - on whether any of it should be included, or partly rewritten, or entirely rejected. This talk page is for talking about improvements to the article, and this is the first time we have had an actual proposal to discuss, so let's discuss it. On the merits, not on what we think of each other. My comments on the proposed addition: the second paragraph should be omitted. It's not even clear what it is saying, or what the issue is. The Bernie quote would belong in the previous paragraph anyhow. The third paragraph is not neutrally written ("left-leaning blog"?) and does not present the situation accurately. The truth is not that "the FBI is investigating," but rather that one field office of the FBI is investigating, inspired by the book Clinton Cash (that's been widely reported), and in spite of guidance from their superiors and the Justice Department that there is nothing worth pursuing.[6] Given all of that, it is probably not worth including. So that leaves the first paragraph. The appointment of a donor to the state department seems like a legitimate complaint but an isolated incident. The acceptance of contributions from foreign governments could be included, since it is well sourced and the Clinton Foundation confirmed it. There is no evidence that it, or these other things, became a major campaign issue or influenced the outcome, however. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Your repeated insistence that these issues are similar in impact to the email and Benghazi issues do not hold up. Here:s one metric: there were repeated, highly publicized Congressional hearings about Benghazi and the email issue; as far as I can tell there has never been a Congressional hearing about the Clinton Foundation. Those issues were pretty low profile during the campaign, as opposed to email (which Trump and his supporters hammered on incessantly, insisting that issue provided grounds to "lock her up") and Benghazi (which was mentioned, but as an afterthought to the email stuff). It was rare to even hear the words "Clinton Foundation", and as far as I know no Reliable Source reporting after the fact has said this was an important contributor to Clinton's defeat. Based on this lack of impact on the campaign, and the fact that your proposed addition provides only a sentence or two of actual usable material, it is probably not worth a subsection in this article. But thank you very much for proposing actual text so we could discuss specifics and sources instead of generalities. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Mika Brzezinski's harassment

User:Muboshgu has reverted the referenced info I added about Mika Brzezinski's harassment, where she says the Clinton campaign tried to get her fired after she was critical of Clinton, even though I was 'thanked' for it by User:Maslowsneeds‬ earlier. I had cited The Hollywood Reporter:

• Hayden, Erik (December 9, 2016). "Mika Brzezinski Claims Clinton Camp Contacted NBC to Say She "Needed to Be Pulled Off the Air"". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved December 10, 2016.

There are many more references we could cite, for example:

• Halper, Daniel (December 9, 2016). "Mika Brzezinski says Clinton camp tried to pull her off the air". The New York Post. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
• Hains, Tim (December 9, 2016). "Mika Brzezinski: Clinton Campaign Tried To Get Me "Pulled Off The Air"". RealClearPolitics. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
• Schladebeck, Jessica (December 9, 2016). "MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski says Hillary Clinton campaign tried to get her 'pulled off the air'". The New York Daily News. Retrieved December 10, 2016.

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"Needed to be pulled off the air" (her quote) ≠ "tried to get her fired" (what you said). As far as I can tell, a Clinton aide vented about Mika's biased coverage to an NBC executive once. I can't blame that aide. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant, unless you are suggesting you agree with the Clinton aide that criticisms of HRC on TV should be censored, and that journalists should be silenced. In any case, the text I added said, "In December 2016, after Clinton had lost, Mika Brzezinski suggested the Clinton campaign had tried to silence her after she had been critical of Clinton by calling executives at NBC and telling them she "needed to be pulled off the air".". Your rationale for removing it was "Pretty major allegation, would need corroboration". But Wikipedia is not alleging anything at all. We are simply relaying the RS-based information--Mika's suggestions--in a NPOV manner. There is no need to corroborate anything at all, because Wikipedia is not saying that it is true or not.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"Tried to get her fired" is your opinion, or interpretation of what Mika said, which is a misinterpretation of what actually happened. I removed it because you're making a major allegation with no evidence, just the word of the person involved, and you're twisting what she said. Of course you can push a POV even by "simply relaying the RS-based information". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not write, "Tried to get her fired", in the article. However, her job description is being on the air; if she were pulled off the air, what else would she be doing at work? In any case, this is a distraction. The emboldened text above is what was in the article, and you removed it. That is completely NPOV, RS-based content. This has nothing to do with me; I am a nobody. It has everything to do with The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Post, RealClearPolitics, The New York Daily News, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You wrote the line "tried to get her fired" in here, talk pages are still under BLP guidelines. And as we went over, time and time again, just because a reliable source publishes it doesn't mean it's automatically fit for inclusion. The explosion of fake news should make us even more discerning. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please look at her job description. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The biggest fake news was that HRC was going to win. "Fake news" is also an HRC talking point and we are not an advertising website for HRC's fundraising! Good Lord.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The fake news came from Russia and elected Trump. That comes from the CIA. [7]. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It's the CIA under Obama, who campaigned for HRC. And Trump denies it. Wikipedia should not take sides.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The CIA doesn't campaign, they detect foreign intrusion. Trump could say the sky isn't blue and you'd want to report that as a legitimate point. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

In every article I've read, the CIA keeps saying they think it's Russia, because it's people with ties to Russia, but they can't prove a direct link to the Russian government. In any case, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Clinton campaign's definition of freedom of the press/media, which is the referenced information you removed!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Obama campaigned for HRC, which is what I wrote.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I misinterpreted that part of what you said. Obama campaigned for HRC. That, however, has no bearing on what the CIA does. The CIA wouldn't be briefing Congress if they didn't have proof of the direct link. And McConnell stymied any attempts at a a bipartisan solution. But, this has nothing to do with Mika's comment, which is dubious. (And I used the wrong link, but have restored my text.) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You don't know that. You (and I) only know that they do not have a direct link. Sure, they can brief the Congress and give them their informed hypotheses (the very definition of intelligence), and add that they don't have a direct link. But this has nothing to do with Mika's comment, as you suggest. Which may be deemed dubious by an anonymous internet user like you, but is relayed by the mainstream media (more important than nobodies like us). So I still think this should be included.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, User:Maslowsneeds‬ thanked me for it, so they disagree with you. Hopefully they can explain why.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe Maslowneeds is indef TBanned from these pages and just got off a block for violating that TBan. If so, IMHO they would do well do avoid even a thank related to these pages. Objective3000 (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not indef banned from commenting about people's edits or to engage in a discussion about such edits. This is a talk page, and I am free to express myself here, to add to the meaningful discussion on the topics of journalism and journalism ethics. The edit was a valid edit about the undue pressures that journalists face, and the edit about Mika should be included. Thank you. maslowsneeds🌈 19:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:TBAN. Topic bans include talk pages. Bye now. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha, then we definitely don't care that user's opinion on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Maslowneeds is now indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• This information has already been added to Mika Brzezinski, and it seems that's where it belongs. There is no need to add it to this article, the main election article, the MSNBC article, and/or a host of other articles that are related to the subject, but not about the subject. Threre is a reason we have main articles, and that is because there is content that is more relevant to that subject than to others. TimothyJosephWood 18:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. The five articles I read about it make it sound like an attempt by the Clinton campaign to censor the media, which could be seen as a big deal.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The "five articles" are really the same article, coming from different sources. It's one story, that isn't corroborated or of significance to this campaign. To Mika, maybe. I doubt even that, but it's more relevant there as TJW suggests. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The first amendment (which includes freedom of the press/media) is kind of a big deal.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That has no relevance to this discussion. It's one story, with no corroboration or significance here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? Isn't a television journalist like Mika protected by the first amendment? I guess not because she works for a private company, but still. America is based on freedom of speech; I think this is a big deal, and Maslow agrees with me apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I misinterpreted you again. Yeah, Mika can be a Trump shill if she wants, and HRC aides can complain about it if they want. So what? Was she censored? No. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

They apparently tried to get her off the air, if you read the five articles above. Is that not an attempt at censorship?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Did they, though? Did they really? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not what the text said. Please read it again,

• "In December 2016, after Clinton had lost, Mika Brzezinski suggested the Clinton campaign had tried to silence her after she had been critical of Clinton by calling executives at NBC and telling them she "needed to be pulled off the air".".

Wikipedia is not investigative journalism. Something happens, it's a big deal, we relay the info as per weight of RS. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a couple sentences repeated in a few publications. There has been no follow up that I can find. No action seems to have been taken. No actual person is named as an instigator. It's fine on Mika's page as she made the allegation. It doesn't belong here without something else related popping up. Objective3000 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

How much more do you want? Five references to add one sentence seems a bit WP:OVERCITE already.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It's one very small story repeated almost word for word in other publications. Objective3000 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this warm candle: The Hollywood Reporter is fine on the Fake news website but here it is challenged. A media presence section does seem warranted concerning the campaign, after all, given what RS have reported, and given that this was a very expensive presidential campaign, donors and non-donors alike might like to know what their money was spent on. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Tense

Much of the article was recently edited to place certain aspects into the past tense. Is this not a bit premature? It is my understanding that the campaign continues to exist, and will do so for a while. I think it is normal for campaign apparatus (successful or otherwise) to operate for months, even years after elections for administrative purposes. I haven't reverted the changes, but I would be interested to know the thoughts of others. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Given that the candidate has conceded, I don't see an obvious reason to write an article on an earthquake in the present tense just in case there is an aftershock.

Also ping @Crohall: who made the edit for comment. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also I myself made a similar edit here. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my query has nothing to do with any metaphorical "aftershock" scenario. It is simply an observation that the campaign apparatus still exists, and will continue to do so for some time. Given that, I think perhaps the tense change (or at least some of it) might be premature. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the article about the 2016 presidential campaign. It is true that the campaign apparatus will still exist for some time after the campaign, and that indeed sometimes that campaign apparatus is used for a purpose different from what the original purpose was. But the past tense is appropriate, because as a *presidential* campaign it is entire past-tense material, at least as far as the 2016 cycle is concerned. It would be interesting to have some of the background-section point out individuals that were involved in the Clinton'08 campaign that reappeared in the Clinton'16 campaign, and ditto for people involved in the Clinton'92 and Clinton'96 campaigns that reappeared. It would also be helpful, as time goes by, to flesh out an Aftermath section which covers what was done with the remaining funds, what happened to the personnel (e.g. who do they endorse in the 2020 and 2024 election cycles), whether anybody went on to work with the Clinton Foundation or similar initiative, and similar such things. Networks of activists and consultants are in some ways more permanent than the apparatus for any given campaign, and wikipedia currently does a poor job of showing the crossover -- not just this article of course, but this article and most other ones. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Past tense is totally appropriate, given that the election is now several weeks old, the losing candidate conceded and the incumbent President acknowledged his successor to ensure an orderly transition of power. Leaving any aspects of the election results in doubt, in Wikipedia's voice, would only fuel the feelings of grief and "unfairness" from disappointed citizens; the world does not need that. The campaign may indeed continue to operate for legal technicalities such as disposing of the remaining funds, but as a political movement it is clearly over. — JFG ^talk 14:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. There are specific things that have been put into the past tense (such as certain personnel) that are still current. I agree that the campaign as a movement is over, but as I have now said twice before, the campaign apparatus is very much a going concern. It is these specific things that I have referred to that I think have been prematurely altered. Do you see what I'm getting at? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose my thinking is that unless there is good reason to believe that individuals are currently working with the organization, it may be reasonable to assume they are not. That is, the burden of proof is on the present tense, if for nothing else, because the article is likely reaching a point where it will remain relatively unchanged for a good long time, and the past tense will very soon be appropriate for all cases including those, probably rare, exceptions where they are currently not.

But by all means, if we can substantiate who exactly is still current, there's no harm in indicating that. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure "the article is likely reaching a point where it will remain relatively unchanged for a good long time". There have been calls to add more details on the extensive coverage (right or wrong) of the Clinton Foundation during the election, calls to explain why the media and pollsters got it so wrong, calls to explain why all the media are suddenly titling their front page stories using the term "Brexit"... a number of things that should have been in the article but were not during the campaign, because most of us didn't want to push too hard for them against strong resistance will logically be added now that the stakes are lower, because those things have been widely reported. SashiRolls (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have called for a good many things to be included in the article, and it appears that little has gained significant consensus for inclusion.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a means for political advocacy, and "the stakes" have nothing whatsoever to do with whether content is appropriate and should be included. TimothyJosephWood 15:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I am far from being alone in making this call and know how to wait. A lot of people have been tbanned or had threats of tbans because of frustrations on this article. Some may still yet be, who knows. Reading the consistent personal attacks above (and in every section of this talk page when constructive edits wre suggested) it is a logical guess that others will be too. But I will wait patiently until consensus is ready to move... don't worry... I imagine eventually people will get tired of removing reliably sourced and widely reported info.SashiRolls (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the discussion is about this edit. We cannot assume that any of the campaign staff have been laid off without reliable sources. We had such sources when the Sanders campaign wound down and his staff were let go. Certainly the campaign's involvement in the recounts show that it still exists. TFD (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It's probably safe to assume the likes of Leon Panetta and Madeleine Albright are not intimately involved at this point. TimothyJosephWood 16:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Albright was never a member of the campaign. Podesta has given multiple interviews in the past week attacking Trump appointments. Trump too is less involved in the Trump Organization lately, but it does not mean his organization has ceased to exist. TFD (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Panetta and Albright are both listed as policy advisors re: the edit in question. Again, seems unlikely they are advising on policy, as there are no policies left for the campaign to disclose.

Anyway, I think at the end of the day the verb tense is certainly not worth a lengthy debate. TimothyJosephWood 18:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Brexit

Now the last ES I read says (in essence) that it is WP:FRINGE to associate "Brexit" with the US elections. @Objective3000:, would you be willing to "google" or "duckduckgo" US BREXIT for us and see how many useful resources you can bring us from the NY Times, the BBC, the Boston Globe, Foreign Policy, etc. I hope you will consider self-reverting or improving the text to include the widely reported notion of Brexit.SashiRolls (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

My point is that I'm not particularly attached to Michael Moore being credited with being right, but that the idea should be included. (In fairness there could be a supporting reference from MM, though.)SashiRolls (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Michael Moore's "prediction" got widespread coverage? Or that it has been cited since the election? Offhand it's hard to see why one pre-election commentary, out of millions of words being churned out, should be included here. But I am willing to be convinced, if it can be shown that the coverage wasn't a one-day-and-off kind of thing. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of net traffic his blog has (probably more than many WP:RS), nor do I know the circulation figures of Alternet Michael Moore's 5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win on FB, but I'd added three different MS links from three different countries to suggest that it was not a marginal story (I even refrained from posting a link to the DN! episode Nov. 7th where Amy Goodman is overwhelmingly kind about a show that (IMO) wasn't very funny (the reasons for which MM explains)). Unfortunately, the references I tried to add, as a productive little Wikipedi-ant have been deleted. But you can look at the history if you'd like.SashiRolls (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, I just saw that him being on Real Time with Bill Maher on July 20, 2016 is notable to Wikipedia by that very fact... ^^ (There's also a Salon article and even one from the Daily Beast) so I'm not sure why this couldn't be restored or improved. It seems to meet all the Wikipedia criteria for a notable, citable, maybe even "terrible" factoid. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

there is some significant coverage of the relationship of the 2016 US election to Brexit and other populist movements around the world. However, this is very indirectly related to the subject of this article. It is much more relevant to United States presidential election, 2016 or perhaps a sub article somewhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

and logically that coverage of the rejection of Neoliberal Europe (trade agreements, banking, shell companies, etc.) getting mixed up with expression of Anti-Other (migrant crisis) sentiment into an explosive Molotov cocktail against the Established Order is worth mention here, since HRC *did* run a neoliberal campaign, and since this connection has been amply covered in the mainstream press. (opinion: Moore sees as clearly as I do that this almost certainly would not have happened had the Dems chosen Sanders. They did not. Trump is the result.) NPOV: What might future encyclopedia readers like our kids, not wishing to be condemned to repeat past errors need to know about this election? – why She lost.SashiRolls (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR WP:NOTFORUM. If you actually think you know the future, or how the present could/would have been altered, start a blog, or become a political advisor. Yes, that was snide. This is an encyclopedia. That's not what this project is about. Objective3000 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I would remind the good user that this is a talk page. Politely defending ideas related to reliable sources is allowed. I spoke of Molotov only because I was working with my 10th graders on Animal Farm and one of the main characters is supposed to be Molotov. But that is indeed beside the point.

The point: Why is there no mention of Blue Nation Review on this page? Why is David Brock never named? SashiRolls (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Brexit, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Neoliberal Europe, Molotov, David Brook? Sorry, but I’ve run out of breadcrumbs. Objective3000 (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Nov 8 date

Let's not try to get philosophical about this. The election that was lost was on November 8, and was concluded when the polls closed. When the election was "called" is not the same as when the election was "lost", in the same manner that the date isn't relevant to when something like recounts or court cases happen or end.

The decision in Bush v. Gore wasn't announced until 12 December, but the United States presidential election, 2000 occurred on 7 November. TimothyJosephWood 15:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing. The election was decided on November 8, even though it wasn't "called" until the early hours of November 9. Would it be possible to change the listing in the infobox, under "status" (i.e., status of the campaign), from "Lost election (date)" to "Conceded (date)"? Her concession was actually the end of her campaign, which is what this article is about. If we can't or don't change it to "conceded" IMO it should say Lost election: November 8. Pinging User:Scjessey and User:Drdpw since they were the most recent people to contest this date. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I self-reverted, after finding out Trump passed the 270 threshold at 11:14 P.M. (source) -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the criteria, but I'm not sure it matters. TimothyJosephWood 16:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the criteria either ;-) -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Wars have been fought and schisms (both political and religious) brought about over issues even smaller than this folks 😉. Regarding this year's election the "lost date" either needs to be November 8, 2016, which was Election Day, or, December 19, 2016, the day on which EC electors will vote. One option to consider if using a different date is your desire, would be to change the entry to "Conceded defeat", in which case the proper date would be November 9, 2016. A second alternative would be to change the entry to "Defeat certified", which will, barring something unprecedented and unforeseen occurring, happen on January 6, 2017. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

What wars have fought over is...actually a really low bar. TimothyJosephWood 18:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

HRC lost on November 8, plain and simple. (Unless the EC shocks us next week, that is.) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

She did, they wont. SaintAviator lets talk 20:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

All I said is it'd be a shock if they did. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

They didnt and she lost again. But the thread below was a minor shock, but against her. SaintAviator lets talk 21:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No, not a shock at all, if you had been following the Hamilton Electors plans. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Electors refusing to vote for Clinton

"Electors in Minnesota, Maine and Washington refused to back Clinton":

• Robb, Greg (December 19, 2016). "Faithless electors so far are Democrats, not Republicans". MarketWatch. Retrieved December 19, 2016.

Should we include this in the lede?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

My gut response might be "no," as the electors at this point basically know the outcome of the vote anyway, and may, not unreasonably, for whatever reason, choose the circumstances to play politics in some way. If at some point in the future, those refusing votes become significant, then maybe that might change, but I have difficulty seeing how that might happen. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is significant because she is losing even more than expected, isn't she?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that we "expected" any particular number of defections. We knew there would be some because of the "Hamilton Electors" group. It should be mentioned in the article but we don't have a full count yet, let alone any analysis, so it shouldn't be in the lead. At least for now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No, unless it changed the outcome, electors voting differently is trivia. TFD (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't ever be in the lede. When we have an actual count of the electoral vote, it should go in the election section. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

7 faithless against clinton, 2 faithless against trump. This is a record back until 1896 (ignoring the instance where a candidate died). A record back to 1836 for presidential elector votes. the fact that so many moved against Clinton is getting quite a bit of coverage. the virst electoral vote ever for a native american as one of them.

• http://www.npr.org/2016/12/19/506188169/donald-trump-poised-to-secure-electoral-college-win-with-few-surprises
• https://www.salon.com/2016/12/19/maine-electoral-college-voter-defects-from-hillary-clinton-to-bernie-sanders/
• http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article121794643.html
• https://grist.org/briefly/one-of-hillary-clintons-faithless-electors-went-to-faith-spotted-eagle-heres-who-that-is/

ResultingConstant (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It really isn't getting a lot of coverage when you consider WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. It's of minor interest today, and it will get zero coverage tomorrow. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not zero. Probably countless peer-reviewed journal articles to come, since HRC just broke a historical record as User:ResultingConstant explained earlier. I think we should add the referenced info now, and we will be able to add more scholarship about this epic loss via JSTOR in a few months.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't pass WP:NOTNEWS or WP:RECENT, and now you are doing the WP:CRYSTAL thing again. Show me it is still a thing in a few days and we'll talk again, but in the meantime it should be excluded per all the policies and guidelines I cited. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You started CRYSTAL. I was showing you CRYSTAL could be used for the opposite effect. I disagree about NOTNEWS and RECENT; it's a historical event (not since 1896 apparently).Zigzig20s (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That's why we should cover it, in the body. But it's too much of a footnote to belong in the lead. It'd be different if they had gotten involved in pressing electors, but they didn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it was 5 against Clinton and 2 against Trump. Unless you are counting the two that were replaced for voting for Sanders. I like the NYT article on it. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/19/us/elections/electoral-college-results.html I agree with MelanieN though, probably should be mentioned in the body but not the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Very notable, include. SaintAviator lets talk 21:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please submit actual evidence to support your opinion. And evidence like "you lost we won" isn't going to be sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Read links above. SaintAviator lets talk 23:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Those links are not about electors refusing to vote for Clinton. This minor detail is only mentioned in passing. Do better. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, did you read the first one on this thread? Or put this 'faithless Electors Clinton' in Google. SaintAviator lets talk 23:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

MarketWatch is NewsCorp garbage. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

As it wasn’t close to affecting the outcome, seems incredibly minor compared to other items in the lead. As for it being “historical,” I suppose it’s also the first time someone was nominated by a major party wearing pantsuits. Brief mention in the body (not of the pantsuits). Objective3000 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree not the pantsuits, but a brief mention in the body is appropriate for the faithless voter. It is a record after all. Ref? 'Time' covered it. SaintAviator lets talk 21:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments on RfC Donald Trump requested

There is currently an RfC about the outcome of the presidential election here. Participation would be appreciated. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Health section

I've made some edits to the Health section that I thought I would explain here. First, I added a sentence explaining the presence of conspiracy theories in the month before the September incident. While this normally wouldn't merit inclusion per WP:FRINGE, I think it's helps show the significance of the September health episode, especially since this helped to make these theories "go mainstream". I also added some sourced criticism of how the Clinton campaign handled the situation at the time, and updated the source which talks about how Clinton released her health records. ^Falling_Gravity 05:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not see why it belongs in a controversy section. Controversies sections are poor style and should be the information should be included in the relevant sections. Candidate's health is always a significant issue. TFD (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the only part of that section which is a controversy outside of conspiracy theorists is transparency issues, which could be a section in itself. I see the section has been moved outside the Controversy section, and I have no objections. ^Falling_Gravity 02:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Gender gap

A recent edit by Frickiewolf about the gender gap was reverted by PeterTheFourth. I would argue that real vote data on the gender gap is more informative than campaign polling. However, for balance, this information should cover all women, not just the white demographic. If the OP can find sources, that would be a welcome addition to the article. — JFG ^talk 10:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Logo Reversion

Can we get an explanation on why the logo keeps getting reverted to the older "red arrow" version? The newer logo with the blue arrow was used much more frequently in the general election. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Was it, really? Do you have a source for this, apart from anecdotal evidence? Also note that the original logo was used for a much longer time span, so people may remember it more. Perhaps we can simply show both of them? — JFG ^talk 20:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)