Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 31

Michelle Alexander essay about the mass incarceration of blacks
Michelle Alexander, a professor at Ohio State University, wrote a long essay in The Nation about Clinton's long-standing support for the mass incarceration of blacks to reduce the official unemployment rate ("Because government statistics like poverty and unemployment rates do not include incarcerated people."). She adds that Clinton also supported cutting welfare for ex-cons and undocumented immigrants, both when she was First Lady and in 2008. She adds that Clinton "used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals". The article was echoed by The Washington Post, Salon, Business Insider, The Huffington Post, etc. I think this should be added to the "First Lady" section, even though Vice News highlights that even in 2016, "Clinton's Ready for Hillary PAC received $133,246 from lobbying firms linked to GEO and CCA."Zigzig20s (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I should add that I was a little surprised and even somewhat skeptical about the article at first, but given that Alexander is a serious scholar and the article was taken seriously by many news outlets, I don't think it should be redacted from her Wikipedia article.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Alexander's comments are notable, but not on her biography page. Belongs more on Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:EvergreenFir: I thought about this too, but Alexander mostly writes about Clinton's support of the mass incarceration of blacks when she was First Lady of Arkansas (and then briefly in 2008). I did add the donations from private prison companies to the "Fundraising" section of her campaign article, but that's info from the Vice News article. I think we should add a short paragraph about the new info from this Alexander article to the "First Lady" section here, don't you?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be included in the campaign article. I don't think it belongs in the first lady section of her biography, at least not at this point. It's essentially the view of one person (Alexander), as opposed to clear, historical facts.- MrX 03:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * user: MrX: But have you read the article? It seems to be based on evidence. In other words, I don't think it is a polemical article; it sounds like a summary of her academic research?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm suspicious of the timing of this "research" that comes out more than 15 years after the fact. I think it overstates Hillary's influence, and is largely the opinion of one person.- MrX 04:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? It is not an opinion piece. It's a serious article apparently based on evidence, probably taken from her academic book, The New Jim Crow.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm... I think if be OK with a mention of it. I do think Alexander's opinion is notable in general.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Zigzig20s: Yes, I read the article which is why I answered "Yes" in my previous comment. Most of the article is about Bill Clinton. Also, I never said the article was an opinion piece, however, the author makes a number of conclusions colored with her opinion, for example "... ﻿ there is such a thing as a lesser evil, and Hillary is not it." and the entire last paragraph of the article.- MrX 04:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Like you, I was disappointed in HRC too after reading this article. But HRC still earns half his paycheck apparently. And Alexander adds, "She bravely broke the mold and redefined that job in ways no woman ever had before. She not only campaigned for Bill; she also wielded power and significant influence once he was elected, lobbying for legislation and other measures.". Also, the racially insensitive ("coded") remarks were apparently made by HRC, not Bill?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. This article IS an opinion piece - in fact a rant, with not a shred of scholarly research or citation. But more importantly, it does not even remotely demonstrate what it claims. I read through the article twice, and there is nothing in it to support the claim that "Hillary supports the mass incarceration of blacks," much less that her motivation for doing so is "to reduce the official unemployment rate". Yes, it links the reported unemployment rate with the "invisible" incarcerated - but it has nothing at all to connect Hillary with either phenomenon. Most of it is about things "the Clinton administration" did, sometime adding that HIllary agreed. The rest of it is "this happened and that happened, so this was the reason for that". This is as unreliable and non-neutral a source as I have ever seen.--MelanieN (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article does not look like an opinion piece to me. Alexander is a serious scholar, not a polemicist. You do know that some are suggesting she should replace Scalia on the Supreme Court, don't you? I read the article and I seem to have come to a very different interpretation than you did. The article appears to suggest that Clinton supported the crime bill, which targeted unemployed blacks, and thus lead to lower unemployment rate. It also targeted undocumented Hispanics, according to Alexander. The racially insensitive language that HRC also used (again, according to Alexander), is equally disappointing.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to say what changes you want made to this article rather than commenting on Clinton. TFD (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not "commenting on Clinton". I have no opinion about Clinton. I am just trying to improve her Wikipedia article. I started this thread because I think we should add this referenced info to the "First Lady" subsection, by using third-party references from The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, Salon, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See, that is one example of the problem. The crime bill did not "target" unemployed blacks. Many of the people who got arrested as a result of the crime bill were unemployed blacks, but it is simply false to say that was the INTENT of the bill. It is equally false, in fact defamatory, to say that Hillary "supports the mass incarceration of blacks," or that she does so "to reduce the official unemployment rate". Dr. Alexander is a serious scholar, yes, but this is not a serious scholarly article. It is a rant, and it jumps way beyond the data, reaching conclusions that are unsupported. --MelanieN (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am confused. I love HRC, but should we not be sticking to the third-party references in The Washington Post, etc., about Alexander's article? I feel that would be much safer, since either you or I misunderstood the article. I admit I was skeptical when I first read it as I said before, but it sounds like a serious article based on years of scholarship to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is not the kind of thing we generally use for a source here. It's no accident that it's published in The Nation, as it is a polemic of sorts – note how at the end it calls for a new progressive political party because the Democrats are hopeless.  But it's mostly a polemic against Bill's record as president.  It lacks specific evidence of what Hillary did as First Lady to advocate for Bill's policies regarding crime – who did she support or oppose in White House policy meetings, which members of Congress did she try to cajole, etc.  All she has is one quote about "superpredators" taken from one set of remarks she made in 1996 and taken out of larger context at that (she was speaking about efforts to curb out-of-control gang violence).  That's too thin to use here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you not doing original research?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to support the comments made by the saner minds here. There's nothing to support the statement "Clinton's support for the mass incarceration of blacks" - a statement which shouldn't really appear even on this talk page because it is arguably a BLP violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you not read the article? I think Alexander is pretty clear, unless I misunderstood the article? Still, the sentence about animals for example is disappointing to say the least.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article explains the consequences of Bill Clinton's policies and says Hillary Clinton supported them. While no doubt that is true, I would want a better referenced article before adding this information to this article.  Alternatively, we could include it as an opinion, "Michelle Alexander said that Hillary Clinton supported her husbands policies that led to mass incarceration, etc."  But to do that we need to explain the degree of acceptance of the opinion by using secondary sources that review what interpretations different writers have.  Also, as a general rule, I would avoid using alternative media for topics, in this case Hillary Clinton, that are well-covered in mainstream media.  Since sources such as The Nation exist in order to present views and stories ignored in mainstream media, using them creates problems of weight.  Their real value in Wikipedia is for articles about topics that are not extensively covered.  TFD (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:The Four Deuces: I provided third-party references about the article. There are many--from The Washington Post, etc. I thought we could use that?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed that. The reporting of Alexander's article in mainstream news articles means that her view is significant.  However, we should use the secondary sources you provided rather than the original article as a source.  While there is no rule against using the primary source, using the secondary source is more consistent with WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV.  TFD (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:The Four Deuces: I would tend to agree with you on this.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Side note – The Alexander piece also mentions her role in the welfare reform legislation that was passing during the Clinton administration. This is something I thought was already in the article but wasn't. It deserves to be there, since she did play a significant role within the White House in shaping it and in accepting the compromise that eventually made it into law. And since it had a biographical impact in terms of causing a rift with her former mentor Marian Wright Edelman. So I've added a brief description of this, using a New York Times retrospective piece and the Bernstein biography as sources. Alexander mentions the debate of about whether welfare reform turned out to be a net positive, but that is a complex subject that would have to be tackled in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 article not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wasted Time R: Why do you say, "Despite misgivings"? Is that not OR? It looks like two more points should be added. 1) When Alexander says the welfare reform "barred undocumented immigrants from licensed professions", she means Hispanics. It sounds like she contributed to the high unemployment rate among Hispanics. 2) Alexander also adds that as a result of the reform "Billions of dollars were slashed from public-housing and child-welfare budgets and transferred to the mass-incarceration machine.". This seems important to note, especially given the recent contributions to one of her Super PACs from Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group. This might be a coincidence, but nobody knows for sure. Have no journalists asked her about her campaign contributions from private prison companies? Did they donate to her senatorial campaign as well? Zigzig20s (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Your quotes only prove the unsuitability of the source.  Sources written in heavily-polemical metaphorical language, designed to elicit emotional response of the reader as a primary goal, are NOT appropriate as sources of unqualified neutral statements written in Wikipedia's voice.  Regardless of Ms. Alexander's scholarly work, works of hers that contain phrases such as "the mass-incarceration machine"  are clearly designed not as a dry presentation of facts written in a neutral voice, but as an incitement of the reader to have an emotional response.  We should not use such sources to support statements written in Wikipedia's voice, period.  At best, it could be used to cite direct quotes which are directly attributed to Alexander herself, if it were deemed to be appropriate to include her opinion in the article (I'm not saying we SHOULD do that, but that's the MOST we should do, if anything, with a source like this).  We should not put text in Wikipedia's voice which is cited to a source that itself uses such a non-scholarly voice.  -- Jayron 32 02:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said before, there are articles in The Washington Post, etc., about this article. But I agree with you that it would be very useful to check if HRC is mentioned in The New Jim Crow. I only found one article authored by Alexander on Jstor--and it was very succinct. And I can't seem to be able to find her list of publications? My point is that it would be much better to cite academic articles about this (although third-party references from mainstream newspapers would be a good place to start). Not sure how much more we could find about HRC's ties to private prison companies?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Zigzig20s, you have to realize that Alexander is hardly the only person who has published on this topic. Dozens and dozens of analyses have been written, from all points of view, of the effects of the 1996 welfare reform act.  If you are interested in this topic, Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is what you want to look at, which is correctly tagged as needing expansion.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that we should try to find more scholarly articles about the extent of HRC's role in the marginalization of blacks and Hispanics. But in the meantime, this should appear in her "First Lady" subsection I think.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See, there it is with the problem of tone. It is one thing to say "Clinton supported policy X which scholar Y has claimed led to the marginalization of group Z."  It is a different thing ENTIRELY to say "Clinton supported marginalization of group Z".  The first statement assigns no unproven motivation to Clinton; the second does.  You cannot say "Clinton wanted to marginalize..." a group where no evidence has been provided that that was her intent in supporting the policies.  Analysis done in retrospect may have shown that those policies have done so, but to state that Clinton intended to cause such a marginalization is a beyond-the-pale BLP problem.  Even ignoring the first problem with using this source in the first place.  -- Jayron 32 03:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows for sure if it was intentional. I thought Alexander's article proved it and I was disappointed in HRC; now I am confused. This is why I think we "we should try to find more scholarly articles about the extent of HRC's role in the marginalization of blacks and Hispanics." But in the meantime, User:The Four Deuces seems to agree with me that we should at least be citing The Washington Post, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not going to say that Hillary marginalized blacks and Hispanics; or that she supported mass incarceration of blacks; or that she regards black children as animals. With that in mind, what specifically do you propose be added to this article, that is well-sourced and relevant to biographical coverage of a person with such an extensive career?- MrX 04:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is no omniscient narrator. As always, we should be adding referenced info based on reliable sources. I think The Washington Post, etc. are reliable sources, don't you?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So based on the Business Insider article for example, perhaps something like "As First Lady, HRC supported legislation which led to the mass incarceration of blacks and high poverty rates among minorities"? I think that's what the BI reference says. Is that not correct?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is not correct. The source says "In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric..." and "... she [Alexander] wrote, noting that Bill Clinton contributed to mass incarceration more than any other president." You are not allowed to use WP:SYNTH to cobble those two statements together. Also, it would require attribution since it is not a widely held viewpoint, and thus cannot be written in Wikipedia's voice.- MrX 13:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about her racially insensitive language here, though we could add it to the article if you want, as it is in the references. I was talking about content which says that Hillary supported the crime bill (she was not out shopping, but lobbying for this legislation), which led to the mass incarceration of blacks and high poverty rates for all minorities (blacks and Hispanics). Maybe you disagree with Alexander, but you're not supposed to have an opinion as a Wikipedia editor. I have no opinion; I just know that Wikipedia is not censored, and I believe we should reflect the content of the sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Should we also edit the biographies of all of the "many black Americans" who supported the bill, and add that their support led to mass incarceration of blacks? Perhaps someone else can explain to you why your proposal goes against our content policies and guidelines, since I've apparently failed to make any headway.- MrX 14:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This well-researched article in Slate refutes much of what Alexander (who supports the Bernie Sanders "revolution", if not the man specifically) says in her piece. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig, you say things like "Nobody knows for sure if it was intentional. I thought Alexander's article proved it." You may be the only person here who thinks so. As I read the developing consensus here, it is that Alexander's article doesn't prove anything - that it presents her opinion rather than any kind of research or reasoned argument, uses highly inflammatory language, and attributes motivations to Hillary that are not supported by any evidence. This talk page is supposed to be about what to put in the article, based on consensus. If you still think there is something that can be added to the article about Alexander, let's hear what language you are proposing, and see if there is support for it at this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We could start by adding As First Lady, HRC supported the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, and she compared African-American children to "superpredators" to the "First Lady" section? I don't think that is debatable. And then we could expand it further.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What someone's motivations are is often a matter of opinion and we cannot state them as fact unless there is consensus in secondary sources. You need to keep the tone non-judgmental, and that applies to all biographical articles, no matter where on the good and evil spectrum they happen to lie.  If you do not, you will find yourself in conflict with other editors.  TFD (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, supporting a legislation is not an intention. It's an act. (As I said, we don't know for sure what her true intentions were, and we will probably never know, since she refuses she talk about it!) We could replace "supported" with "lobbied for" if you prefer? That's all in the third-party references.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The intention you claim is "mass incarceration of blacks." Conceivably there might have been other intentions, such as reduction in crime.  Or maybe she lacks empathy, and places personal advantage over other people without regard to their race.  TFD (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows for sure. I don't claim anything. Michelle Alexander connected the dots for us I think. As I said, I was disappointed in HRC after I read the article, especially when I saw that the article was widely reported in the national press. But at this point, I am no longer sure who to believe. In any case, let's stick to the facts, since we have not reached consensus over the seriousness of Alexander's article (is it based on academic research or an opinion piece authored by an African-American scholar?). The facts are that HRC supported the crime bill, and that she compared African-American children to "superpredators", are they not? If you can confirm that, I think this should be added to the "First Lady" section. Whether HRC has bad intentions towards minorities or not is something we will never know for sure--so let's try to agree on the facts. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely should not go into the article Amazing how much traction this type of absurdity gets on Wikipedia. Clinton support for mass incarceration of blacks would be supported if, hypothetically, someone found a quote from Clinton that said "I think blacks should be locked up," or the like. But if someone is tough on crime, then they are supporting incarceration of criminals, not of blacks.CometEncke (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that there is no consensus about her motivations/intentions, in spite of Michelle Alexander's article. However at this point, can we please agree to add to the "First Lady" subsection that HRC supported the crime bill, and that she compared African-American children to "superpredators" as Alexander suggests? Or is there no consensus about this either?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not going to happen. In fact, Alexander's article is now attracting some pretty negative press because of her hostile, antagonistic tone and stretching of the truth. She even stated on her own Facebook page that she's going to stop talking about it now because it's turned out to be "too divisive". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of Alexander's article, can we not add that HRC supported the crime bill as First Lady? That's a fact. Wikipedia articles are built on referenced facts.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not notable, so it would be undue weight to have it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the extensive media coverage it's gotten, it's hardly undue.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and consensus is clearly against you. Time to back away from the dead horse because this is becoming tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been avoiding this thread due to an off-putting and ludicrous-sounding title (which I've changed). What's the proposal here, to include a statement that Clinton wants to put blacks in camps so as to bias the popular vote, based on a single writer's essay to that effect? That would seem to be a non-starter. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting anything like that. Please assume good faith. We could say that she supported the crime bill, which led to the mass incarceration of African-Americans. This is fact-based.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * quoting you: that she compared African-American children to "superpredators" as Alexander suggests? Or is there no consensus about this either? Correct - there is no consensus about this because that's not what she said. She compared gang members to superpredators. Last time I looked "gang members" and "African-American children" were not synonyms. Please stop trying to put words into her mouth and invent motivations for her actions. Way past time to let this go. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:MelanieN: Please assume good faith! I have zero opinion and I think HRC is probably not "racially insensitive"--who knows. But it is my understanding that Alexander suggests the "superpredators" referred to African-American children, many of whom ended up in prisons run by Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group, both of which have donated to one of HRC's 2016 Super PACs.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The children part is pretty explicit. She said kids repeatedly. The african american part is a bit more obtuse, but certainly a reasonable reading and interpreted that way by sources - although there are certainly gangs of all races.Gaijin42 (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Thank you for stating the obvious.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Gaijin42, and thank you for stating the obvious. She said that some kids in gangs are superpredators. She did NOT say African American kids in gangs are superpredators. Alexander jumps to the conclusion that she meant African American kids specifically, but that is putting words in her mouth. As you point out, there are gangs of all races. For that matter, Hillary did not say "animals" either; that again is Alexander putting words in her mouth. --MelanieN (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously Clinton was referring to African Americans, and you are bringing up an unnecessary argument. If the media think it is important then we emphasize it.  If they do not, we do not.  Whether or not the media is accurate, they determine the weight we provide.  TFD (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's only "obvious" if you assume that all gang members are African American. Are you willing to make that assumption? There is no evidence that Clinton does. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, MelanieN. Anyway, it is clear there's no consensus for the absurd "Clinton supports the mass incarceration of blacks" narrative. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what is at stake. Nobody knows for sure what her intentions were/are. But we could add, "As First Lady, while talking about superpredators, HRC supported the crime bill, which led to the mass incarceration of blacks.", as all of this is fact-based.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that is a lie. The Crime Bill did not lead to the mass incarceration of blacks. See this cast-iron source. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "As First Lady, HRC supported the crime bill, and she talked about superpredators"?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reaching consensus about facts. Wikipedia editors don't make points; they only reflect third-party references. Of course we could add, "Michelle Alexander, an African-American legal scholar, argues this led to the mass incarceration of blacks, while others disagree."Zigzig20s (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That won't work. The Alexander piece has been discredited by the media, such as in the Vox article I linked to, so it can now be regarded as a fringe view. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is for science, not politics. Disagreeing is not "discrediting". that people disagree with her is a reason to include their counterargument, not exclude. If you think we should not include this under editorial discretion, thats a fine argument (and perhaps one I agree with) but don't rely on bullshit arguments. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. WP:FRINGE applies to any point of view outside of the mainstream. And the reason we cannot include her fringe view and the counterarguments presented in the media is because the two points combined would represent undue weight, especially in a summary style article where brevity is cherished. We have to leave a ton of stuff out of this article already, so elevating the importance of this outlying view seems ludicrous. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I've done some looking into the question of weight. I've looked through the two mainstream biographies that cover HRC's First Lady period, the Bernstein and the Gerth/Van Natta ones. Neither mention the 1994 crime bill even once. Then I looked at HRC's first memoir, which covers this period at some length. It has only the briefest mention of the crime bill, as one of a list of things that had higher legislative priority within the Clinton administration during 1993–94 than welfare reform. By comparison welfare reform was something she really did care about and get involved in and play a real role in – and accordingly it is covered at some length in all three of these books and has separate index entry in all three.

So while it may be true that HRC publicly supported the crime bill, there still needs to be evidence that she played a significant role in it. While it's likely she approved of some parts of it, such as the Violence Against Women Act and the assault weapons ban, her support for other parts of it may have just been the kind of pro forma support that First Spouses have to give to whatever the President is doing. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree on weight, and obviously HRC's own memoirs are not reliable, third-party sources, but PR exercises; mere advertising for a product.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's your right to disagree, but clearly consensus is against you on this. This has consumed a ludicrous amount of energy, so I suggest you let it go now. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Gaijin42: Do you think Alexander's essay about HRC's role in the crime bill and "superpredators" should be redacted from this article? You seemed hesitant earlier.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Redacted from this article"??? It isn't currently in the article - is it? Did I miss it? --MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I think HRCs comment was in poor taste, but - Clinton was not president. That she verbally supported a bill that was passed by congress and signed by her husband, that may in the opinion of some writers had an effect that is disputed, is sufficiently wishy washy that it probably doesn't belong in the main BLP article. It could be appropriate in the crime bill article. If this becomes a campaign issue (in the primaries, or real election) it could go there. Also, if it becomes a campaign issue, more people are likely to write about it, which will give additional context and weight. At that point it could evolve into a BLP issue. But I don't think it is now. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked Alexander's The New Jim Crow and the total number of times Hillary is mentioned in it? Zero.  She rakes Bill over the coals, but nothing on Hillary.  And the total number of times the term 'superpredator' is mention in it?  Zero.  So if she didn't think that Hillary or her remark was significant enough for inclusion in a 300-page book when she wrote it, what should make us think it significant now?   Wasted Time R (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're joking, right? After all this non-sense abut Alexander's "scholarly research" and HRC is not even mentioned in the book. Unbelievable! - MrX 00:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

apparently this issue was brought up by some protesters at the campaign rally yesterday. If such issues continue (and continue to get national mainstream coverage) then it probably may become WP:DUE for the campaign article. But I think probably unlikely to be due for her BLP unless it raises to such a level that it becomes part of her permanent notability, or is widely pointed to as a specific cause of derailing her candidacy or something. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-black-lives-matter-south-carolina_us_56ce53b1e4b03260bf7580ca?section=politics Gaijin42 (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point would be well made except for the fact the same individuals protested Bernie Sanders as well. They seem to just like getting their agenda in front of whomever will listen (and I don't blame them). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the same logic would apply to Sanders. If the protests continue, are covered, and become an issue for any candidate, then we should cover it in the relevant campaign article. If it becomes an unduring part of their reputation and persona, then we should cover it in their BLP. I think Sanders would likely have an easier time sloughing off such criticism though, due to his extensive record in the Civil Rights movement, and explicit lack of ammunition like is being discussed in this thread. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The protestors claimed in their video Clinton was talking about "at risk youth" with her "we have to bring them to heel" comment, when it was obvious she was talking about the criminals preying on the at risk youth. The notion anyone would blame innocent youths is ridiculous. It's unlikely this will be a factor. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * HRC on "superpredators" in The Washington Post.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion piece. TFD (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a video her confrontation with an activist and a direct quote from her about the word! Zigzig20s (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, a direct quote indicating that she wouldn't have used the word to describe gang members (without specifying race). I'm not sure why this is an issue, given that Sanders used similar language in support of the bill. bd2412  T 16:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Political positions
Just one question. I looked closely at Mitt Romney's article and compared the 'Political positions' section to Hillary Clinton. Now I dare not change it but with all due respect, clear something up for me will you? Romney's article (which also has a star) is stating his political positions much more than the HC article does. Basically the whole section of Political positions is about placing her on a Political compass, rather than talking about her actual policies? Now I do realize that she has a long career and I do not wish to be for her or against her, but shouldn't that section be a bit longer and the part where studies found her to be on a Political compass a bit shorter. It would be nice if her major policies were in the main article. One other thing (I may be pushing it now): shouldn't there at least be a mention that she changed her policies on number of issues, including LGBT, civil rights, Wall Street, Health care etc. Just putting it out there. Any replies are welcome. TheAce11912 (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I see an entire article called Political positions of Hillary Clinton, if you would like to write a better summary of that article here then feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you very much for replying! English is not my mother-tongue (as you may have noticed) and therefore I am pretty sure that I don't meet the criteria to write on an article with the star - not in the slightest. But back to the point. I do think that the article Political positions of Hillary Clinton should be changed as well. What I want to point out is that the summary here is a bit too concentrated on the Political compass, rather than her actual policies. A brief mention of some key-policies should be included in my opinion. Thank you! TheAce11912 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * One difference is that the Romney article has a section about his political positions in the 2012 campaign, while this one is not limited to a particular period. Both politicians btw have changed their policies considerably.  The section in this article though is not very helpful.  Democratic senators are far more conservative than representatives, or the party as a whole.  Clinton's voting record is probably more to the center or right of the typical Democrat and the section should mention her involvement in the New Democrats, the centrist caucus of Democrats.  TFD (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I feel the main issue is expansion, and structure of the section, it needs fixing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The summary the way I see it:
 * -position on Political compass (in other words the whole section that now exists shortened to one paragraph)
 * -a mention of a few other topics: Economic policy, Foreign policy, Civil liberties and democracy, Social policy. I will leave the breakdown of these to those who are better suited for the job than I am. But my point stands. And yes, I definitely agree that that section needs expansion. Good point about Romney though. However, how should then the article look like? Political positions overall? Political positions at the time of the current presidential campaign? In all fairness I think it's more logical to introduce either the overall positions or both overall and current. TheAce11912 (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, in politics, talk is cheap. Candidates will propose things that they don't really believe in just to get votes at a certain point or they will propose things they believe in that have zero chance of ever happening.  So it's okay for the "Political positions of ..." article to include what a person says they would do if they get into a position of power, but the main biographical main article should focus on what the person has actually done when they have previously been in positions of power.


 * Secondly, political positions require some nuance to explain fully and fairly, especially if they have evolved over time. That's what the "Political positions of ..." articles are good for, since they have to space to do so.  To cram things into the main article requires making little sound bites of them, which is a bad idea.  Look at the summary section in the Marco Rubio article to take a current example.  It says "On Obamacare, he wants to repeal it and replace it with tax credits and less regulation."  That's a woefully incomplete and basically useless description – does he want to reduce the percentage of uninsured? forbid pre-existing conditions restrictions? make high-risk pools, and if so, how to guarantee they will be economically viable? bend the health care cost curve?  It says "Rubio plans to set corporate taxes at 25 percent" but doesn't say anything about individual rates or brackets; it says he wants to "reform the tax code" which is motherhood and apple pie since everyone is for tax code reform of one kind or another; it says he wants to "cap economic regulations" which is completely mysterious – cap based on number? monetary cost? freeze in place forever?  It says he "advocates closing the federal Department of Education" but doesn't say whether that would be replaced by block grants to the states or what.  It says "on the Islamic State, he favors aiding local Sunni forces in Iraq and Syria", which absolutely everyone favors but no one is sure can be made to happen as long as Iraq is governed by Shiites and the Sunnis feel disenfranchised.  It says "he is wary of China regarding national security and human rights, and wants to boost the U.S. military presence in that region but hopes for greater economic growth as a result of trading with that country" which is a vacuous having your cake and eating it too formulation.  And so on and so on.  This kind of summary gives the reader no value.  Better is to do a data-driven treatment of the person's general political philosophies and then direct the reader to the "Political positions of ..." article for sufficiently lengthy and useful descriptions of specifics.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As the person who wrote much of the section on Rubio's political positions, I did it to shorten the much longer material that I spun off to a sub-article. I would have preferred to just have a summary of ratings and the sort of thing in this Clinton article, but editors at the Rubio article insisted otherwise.  WTR gives some good reasons, and another reason is because a laundry list of specific positions in the main article is a magnet for POV-pushing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be clear, I'm not being critical of the person writing that summary, I'm just saying it's an impossible task and one that there is no need to take on. And it would be just as difficult for this article.  Her positions and relationships with Wall Street are complicated, as everyone can see; her various positions on trade and NAFTA and TPP have been intertwined with political considerations in 1993 and 2008 and 2016, so it's hard to know what she really thinks; her views on when to stage foreign interventions are complicated and have been buffeted by cases where not intervening went badly and other cases where intervening went badly; and so on.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the late reply. First of all, I took a good look at article about Mitt Romney. I am pointing that article out because it was awarded a star as well. No I don't wish to be presumptuous, however, that section of that article is quite different from this one. It actually describes his positions and there is a summary of those, rather than just complying by some studies on the position on the political compass. So I believe that we should either take THAT article as a 'standard' or this one. I just thought that this question was a right one to ask. As far as I am concerned the stance on that should be as neutral as possible (obviously, this is a Wikipedia). I don't think that we should be asking the question whether or not to add to that section, but rather WHAT to add. That can be more tricky. I think we should also be refering to other articles about politicians. So my question to you is if we should be changing this article to meet the criteria of others or should we be changing other articles to meet the criteria of this one.
 * I don't think that the actual personal opinion of HRC or any politician for that matter is relavant. The right approach to that is (in my opinion of course) to look closely at their record and make that section about that and that only. I am saying this because the section is not about her positions in this campaign, but rather her positions in general.
 * Of course these things are complicated, but I think nonetheless that they should be included here. For further references (as you have said) people could always go to the main article about her positions. I hope I have not insulted anyone since that was not my intention. TheAce11912 (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm broadly in agreement with WTR on this. Hillary Clinton has a long and ever-evolving list of positions that are complex and difficult to summarize. This is partly because she's been around for ages, but also because she's worn several different hats over the years and her emphasis necessarily changes. That said, there are some political positions that she has maintained for decades, such as her advocacy for fair pay for women and women's rights in general. I think the current section can certainly be improved a bit, but I do not think expansion is a good idea at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image, again
Re:

There was a lot of debate about the infobox image in June and July of last year, culminating in !voting and "No consensus to change from the present portrait" (most recent official portrait). Given the amount of time and sweat put into that, and given that there was no expiration date on it, I don't think the image should be changed without further discussion and !voting, and I am reverting the above edit. The archived discussion is at Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 27. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. There should be a new discussion if someone thinks we should change the lead image.- MrX 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of people want it changed, given the attempts to add it in the article and points brought up on this talk page. I suppose another discussion and !vote should be in order — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2180:22A:B461:70BF:72B0:FC08 (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Washington Times
Please do not add citations to the Washington Times to this article. If anything is reliably sourced enough to include, it will be found in a better source. If a better source is found, there is no reason to add a non-reliable source. There has been extensive discussion of the Washington Times as a source on WP:RS/N — or you can review the archive there. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I personally haven't had much experience with WT, but I see several very experienced and knowledgeable editors saying negative things about it in the above-linked discussion. That's enough for me, and we should err on the side of caution in a BLP article—and especially a BLP article (1) that is under discretionary sanctions, and (2) where the subject is currently a candidate for U.S. president. For me, it doesn't need to get any more complicated than that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for ending the edit war (I hope), although your last revert was unnecessary. It was effectively another shot in the edit war, and this will be resolved soon enough here.


 * Can you explain third revert here?


 * I really do not understand if A says "X is true." and B says "X is true." – why would we decide to keep A rather than B or both in order to confirm "X is true."? What if I now remove The New York Times saying it is a non-reliable because it is founded by blah-blah... with no clear reson to justify that?


 * If something was written (let’s say 3,000 e-mails in TWT and everyone else says it is 2,000 + reliability of TWT can be questioned), then I would not insist on keeping TWT besides other sources i.e. confirming that different opinion; but I could – Wikipedia editors are not meant to use democratic voting in order to decide what is reliable or non-reliable but to state what others state, even if we are talking about diametrically opposed opinions of TNYT and TWT or ten opposed opinions of any other sources. Better to include everyone’s opinion and every source than to risk disrespect/inequity and be biased to (some)one.
 * See Wikipedia is not a democracy guideline: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting."


 * So what to do now? Wikidemon and Scjessey expressed their own opinion (and maybe someone else) to exclude TWT, I said to keep it. If we break rule and use democratic voting, then it will stay excluded for no obvious reason as I can say TNYT is founded by Moonies and is rubish etc. and simply delete it leaving only Politico. That opinion of mine what source is rubish and what is not rubish is 0% important on Wikipedia.


 * Who ended edit war? By continuing it and hoping I won’t make next revert? No. Wikidemon just continued it with no explanation, and it is not ended – just frozen till I do make or do not make revert and someone else continues editing after a certain period of time (I won’t revert again but want to reslove problem here, properly, with arguments). --Obsuser (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that I think about it more, that last revert is maybe more justifiable in an article like this, as it errs even more on the side of caution. Either way, the reverting should stop now. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I thanked Wikidemon for ending the war by starting the discussion, which you or anyone else could have done a long time ago. I criticized them for the last revert, saying it added to the war, but the solution to that is not yet another revert. All edit wars consist of editors reverting what they consider to be other editors' unjustified reverts.


 * As I said, I will not revert any more. I did not start edit war whatsoever as one of those editors was first to remove source with no reason. I hope they will explain that because if they don’t manage to prove why TNYT is only reliable (with Politico etc.) and TWT cannot be used to confirm even the same thing TNYT says – then I will put TWT back because then there was no reason to remove it at the very beginning as someone added it and used his/her user rights whatever they are. --Obsuser (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS does not require your opponents to convince you that you are wrong. I have very rarely seen anyone change their mind in a discussion (and that was usually me). The inherent assumption (not a perfect assumption but the best we can do) is that the alternative best supported by policy and community consensus is the one that will receive the most support in a local discussion. If you don't like the local consensus, you are free to open an RfC. But you can't declare your opponents' arguments invalid and edit against the consensus without risking a disruption complaint at WP:ANI and a possible sanction. Process is king, and so it must be in a civilized community. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So what is preventing me from inputting TWT back if they will not explain? Are two votes against with no clear arguments stronger than my for with stating there are no arguments to declare some source as unreliable just like that [personal opinion]? No. If nothing is resolved here, there’s absolutely no reason to keep rather Scjessey’s or Wikidemon’s edit with excluded TWT as last rather than mine or the one’s who added it first. It is better to revert it to the first version till consensus is reached, no reason to keep his no in contrast to my yes for one source plus confirming same thing as others. --Obsuser (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What to do with the article while this is under discussion is a gray area that I wish Wikipedia policy would clear up. On the one hand there's status quo ante, which points one way, and which I favor in general. On the other, BLP concerns, which point the other way in this case. But we're talking about just a few days, so I would just leave it alone and focus on discussion of the content issue. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't have a consensus here yet, the discussion is only a couple of hours old. It will take days for a consensus to emerge. Patience.
 * No consensus or discussion is required here. Project-wide, you don't add unreliable sources like the Washington Times to serious articles. The burden, unsurmountable in most cases, lies on anybody wanting to introduce such a source. If this were a typical consensus discussion, then fine, we could apply normal BRD process. But we can't start the conversation afresh every time somebody wants to introduce aa Washington Times link. The standing rule is that these citations are not allowed. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Obviously it is required as there are two opinions.
 * — Could you clarify "project-wide", give proof or anything that would support "WT is unreliable" and define "serious article"?


 * I can put it back of course, because only you say "it is unreliable" with no arguments, just personal opinion it is. Besides that, it is not stating anything different; is it? Then why not to include it?


 * After you answer these above, could you consider this: Washington Times said there were 3,000 e-mails; what if I wanted to add that right next to the 2,100 e-mails because simply I can do that – Wikipedia is citing what other media write, not making some weird selection based on users’ personal opinions whether some source is reliable or not to confirm something (especially if that "something" is as same as every other daily reports).


 * You don’t have to proove me I’m wrong, I think I’m right; I don’t have to proove you you are wrong, you think you are right. It is about reaching a consensus why should i.e. should Washington Times which reports same as others do be excluded for no reason at all? If there is reason (some proof that it is a deceptive incorrect-information-giving daily), then let’s start RfC so it gets blacklisted. If you don’t have even one valid argument why it should be excluded [even when it says same as others], it should be included back, as soon as possible. --Obsuser (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

-


 * Summary: We have statement in an article which is indisputably true. We have several sources to confirm it. We used those sources properly. Some editors expressed their own opinion against only one daily (Washington Times) saying it is unreliable, and removed it from the article with no explanation. Serious problem does not exist at all; problem is only someone’s personal attitude negatively affected number of and choice of references [possible blanking and vandalism], what should not be let on Wikipedia. --Obsuser (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

While I oppose inclusion, I disagree with 's assertion that we don't even need to discuss it. Very few things in Wikipedia editing are that clear-cut, and this isn't one of them. However, if the answer is that obvious, a consensus here should be easy and little time should be wasted. If the consensus here happened to be for inclusion, I would expect any decent editor to respect it until and unless it was overridden at some higher level. I would be interested to see the "standing rule" that Wikidemon refers to, and I'm automatically skeptical about assertions of rules that are not written down in ways that are accepted as community consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I don’t want to discuss it five days – simply list arguments why to exclude TWT. If they don’t exist then some user expressed own opinion not to include it which tells us he thinks source is not relevant, not that source is not relevant indeed. Discussion is always useful.--Obsuser (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times falls into the same category as WorldNetDaily, Cybercast News Service and the Breitbart News Network. None of these are considered "mainstream media" by any stretch of the imagination. They are largely conservative opinion organs specifically created to raise the volume of the right wing echo chamber. Being outside the realm of the normal mainstream media, they simply aren't trustworthy as reliable sources. Moreover, there are plenty of mainstream alternatives that can be used in their stead. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Role in 2009 Honduras coup
many sources say she had a part in it,someone who knows about the subject should add it and explain it. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/04/hypocrisy-surrounds-the-of-berta-caceres-in-hondurashttp://www.democracynow.org/2015/7/28/clinton_the_coup_amid_protests_in http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/25/1438997/-It-Takes-Fortitude-and-Hillary-Clinton-Has-It-The-Honduras-Edition William M.hijo (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a whole paragraph about this in the Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State article. It says:
 * Clinton returned to the diplomatic scene and responded to the ongoing 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, in which plans for the Honduran fourth ballot box referendum had led to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, and which was becoming Latin America's worst political crisis in some years.[88] In early July, she sat down with ousted President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya, who agreed on a U.S.-backed proposal to begin talks with the de facto Roberto Micheletti government.[89] Later, in September, Zelaya returned to the country, and President of Costa Rica Óscar Arias, who had become a mediator in the matter, as well as Clinton expressed hope that Zelaya's return could break the impasse with the Micheletti government. In particular, Clinton said, "Now that President Zelaya is back it would be opportune to restore him to his position under appropriate circumstances – get on with the election that is currently scheduled for November, have a peaceful transition of presidential authority and get Honduras back to constitutional and democratic order."[90] At the end of October, Clinton took a leading role in convincing Micheletti to accept a deal – which she termed an "historic agreement" – in which Zelaya would return to power in advance of general elections in which neither figure was running.[88] Micheletti said that Clinton had been insistent on this point: "I kept trying to explain our position to her, but all she kept saying was, 'Restitution, restitution, restitution.'"[88] That agreement broke down, despite efforts of the State Department to revive it,[91] and Clinton and the U.S. ended up supporting the winner of the 2009 Honduran general election, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, with Clinton characterizing the elections as "free and fair" and Lobo as holding a strong commitment to democracy and the rule of constitutional law.[92]
 * The sources used there are The New York Times, Reuters, CNN, the Associated Press, and BBC News. The source you are using to support the notion that she supported the coup is a letter to the editor of The Guardian from a British trade union official.  That carries no weight here.  The interview with Zelaya in the Democracy! Now source does not disagree with the above account – Clinton was talking with both sides after the coup, trying to resolve the situation as best she could.  The Daily Kos piece is a long narrative that is sympathetic with Clinton's approach.  So I think the subarticle's narrative is fair and accurate.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016
104.136.86.145 (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like for this picture to be in as her official picture. It is her picture from her time in the senate.

We are already using an official picture, and a more recent one. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

8	Legal affairs
Where is is the " Legal affairs " tab in her table of contents ?2601:203:100:66B8:AC59:9774:CC1:7232 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC) wikipedia - needs a standard format in all fairness


 * The "Whitewater and other investigations" header in the Table of Contents leads you to Whitewater, Travelgate, Foster files, FBI files, cattle futures, and White House gifts. The "Benghazi attack and subsequent hearings" header leads you to that matter and "Email controversy" leads you to that and "Clinton Foundation" leads you to that.  That's nine legal matters, one more than you asked for.  As for a standard format, for better or worse, Wikipedia doesn't do that.  There are some common practices, but every article can be, and often is, organized differently.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 Presidential Election
Please update the record to reflect how Nevada was actually won by Sanders after the voter fraud was discovered. Over 300,000 ballots were mysteriously misplaced. Please also update the record to show that Bernie has won (I believe) 8 out of the last 9 primaries, none of which are reflected on this page. [07:19, April 6, 2016‎ 104.33.200.110]


 * Maybe that's because this is Hillary Clinton's biography, not Bernie Sanders' and not an article about the details of the presidential election. Tvoz / talk 07:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What 300,000 ballots in Nevada? Nevada is a caucus state, and while like Iowa it does not report a total popular vote number on election day, just a number of delegates elected to the next level of choosing, per this Politico story and other figures I've seen, total Democratic turnout for Nevada was around 80,000.  So to say there were 300,000 extra people who showed up to the caucuses but weren't counted is absurd.  Now what is happening in the last couple of days in Nevada is that Sanders has done a better job of organizing the next level, so that while Clinton won 53 percent of the delegates the first time around, now it looks as though Sanders has won 55 percent of the delegates in the second level.  But there's still a third level to go.  (This is the kind of quasi-anti-democratic thing that happens in the primary process in some states – it's similar to the way that Cruz is grabbing some delegates that initially were thought to be Trump's, leading to Trump threatening to sue, and it's the same thing that Ron Paul did to Romney in 2012, leading to the infamous Rule 40(b) for Republican conventions.)  But the importance of the initial Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada/South Carolina sequence is in perceptions, fundraising, and effects on the race, not delegate counts per se.  So how Nevada finally ends up isn't really relevant for this article.


 * As for Bernie's current winning streak, that isn't any more relevant than Hillary's winning streak right before that, which isn't mentioned in the article either. If you look at this RCP chrono results table of the race so far, it's tempting to see streaks in it, but as many sources have described, it's more about demographics of each state and whether they were caucus or primary.  Hillary was always going to win Florida and Arizona, for example, and Bernie was always going to win Kansas and Washington.  Mix them up and similar states up in the voting order and any streaks will quickly disappear.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Campaign season drags on too long, leading to ebbs and flows, good moments and bad moments. We need to take stock of everything and remember the bigger picture, which is that Hillary is a candidate and will either win or lose the nomination in due time, meaning the next few months. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)