Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Lead changes
Edited out the list of positions. Keeping the most memorable one.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good call, that does read better. Juno (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirected
Redirected to United_States_presidential_election,_2016 Hillary Rodham Clinton, as this is highly speculative and we don;'t speculate in Wikipedia per WP:CHRYSTAL. Any usable content can be added there. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CHRYSTAL Says that we can't talk about unverifiable speculation. There are mountains of RSs talking about the campaign and furthermore, WP:CHRYSTAL explicitly mentions the US 2016 Presidential race as something that is worth writing about. Wikipedia coverage of McCain's 2008 run pre-dates his announcement by nearly 2 months, Wikipedia coverage of HRC's 2008 campaign predates her even forming an exploratory committee (rather than her announcement) by 5 months.

There is precedent (and already significant coverage on the main HRC article) and more RS coverage than anyone can shake a stick at. It might be worth adding a modifier to the title but this should be its own article. Juno (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * United States presidential election, 2016 is acceptable as an article now because there will be a presidential election in the U.S. in two years, barring an asteroid hitting the earth or something like that. Hillary being a candidate in that election is far less certain.  You are right about Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 being created on September 3, 2006‎, several months in advance of her January 20, 2007 announcement.  But I think most WP editors now consider that to have been a mistake.  You are wrong about John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 - that article was first created on March 2, 2007‎, several days after his informal announcement of candidacy on February 28, 2007 during the David Letterman show.  And I think that during the 2012 cycle, editors were careful not to create any campaign articles until some kind of positive announcement had been made.


 * Also see the discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections regarding this. So far, sentiment seems to be against having a campaign article this early.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on the wikiproject discussion Juno (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Redirect to Hillary Clinton until she announces she is either running or has formed an exploratory committee(or other concrete step towards deciding to run); right now she states she is just thinking about running(as are undoubtedly dozens of politicians) and will decide later; no actual campaign exists yet. Speculation about her running should be in Clinton's article, just as with any other potential candidate, until her campaign actually exists. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Hillary Clinton per 331dot. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as a separate article In line with HRC's 2008 campaign article and several other campaign articles: viability starts when our RSs say it does, not when the written announcement drops. The sourcing and the precedents are clear. Juno (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename - This is obviously a notable topic, but the article has to be renamed to something like Hillary Clinton presidential campaign speculation, 2016 until such time that she declares her candidacy. This would be required according to WP:TITLE- MrX 15:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We have verifiable speculation, but not about anything tangible or concrete. The thing being speculated on (a campaign) does not exist yet- but Hillary Clinton herself does exist, which is where the information should go. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If this remains we could end up with a plethora of articles, if we don't already have them; "Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2016", "Chris Christie presidential campaign, 2016", "Jeb Bush presidential campaign, 2016, or even "Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2016". None of these campaigns exist yet. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect  per 331dot. This is  Crystal to the max .   Kosh Vorlon     15:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:CRYSTAL to the max would seem to support this content: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." emphasis added - MrX 15:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree Crystal supports redirection or deletion as she has yet to declare if she really is running for president in 2016. :)    Kosh Vorlon     16:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Hillary Clinton. Article at this point seems to me to be an inherent violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. If individuals wish to "jump the gun" with such speculative articles, may I respectfully suggest that they make efforts to have such speculative articles clearly indicated as meeting notability guidelines in the relevant guideline pages themselves. Even granting the above, the type of content specifically discussed in the quotations provided does not seem to me to be of sufficient quantity to merit a separate article. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename Draft Hillary Clinton movement and tweak the content accordingly, per my comments on this thread. Otherwise, redirect to Hillary Rodham Clinton per 331dot, KoshVorlon and John Carter.--JayJasper (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hillary Rodham Clinton per WP:CRYSTAL.--ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hillary Clinton article. Start a new section titled "Speculative 2016 presidential campaign" or something similar, and merge the content there.--Ewers1 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, that would still be a WP:CRYSTAL problem and just as bad as a separate article.--ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not as bad as a separate article, as it is verifiable speculation about Hillary Clinton herself, and not a-so-far-hypothetical campaign that doesn't yet exist. Hillary Clinton exists. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, WP:CRYSTAL is intended to keep rumors and unverifiable speculation out of the encyclopedia. I thought that was clear from the passage that I quoted above.- MrX 20:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirecting per WP:SNOWBALL -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect until announcement. Speculation exists. Hillary Clinton exists. But speculation is not the same as a campaign. Hillary Clinton presidential campaign of 2016 does not exist at this time and there is no certainty it ever will.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Protection level
Given the visibility of this topic, I have placed a protection level on this page matching that of the parent article, Hillary Rodham Clinton. I think it's common sense to keep the article protected at this level until there is no longer an active 2016 campaign underway. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I disagree. In my general experience, most troublemakers hit the main BLP and either don't know about or don't care to bother the subarticles.  I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 was unprotected all the way through that campaign and looking at the article history now, it doesn't show any particular problems from IP addresses (just lots of edit warring from registered accounts).  And more fundamentally, we're trying to encourage new editors, not discourage them, and leaving this article open can help in doing that.  Of course, if this does become a subject of abuse from IP addresses, the protection can always be added then.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Mitt Romney's campaign page was fully protected (i.e. sysop editing only) for a few short periods in August and September 2012. I suppose it can't hurt to wait and see. This page has plenty of watchers, and will accumulate plenty more. bd2412  T 22:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements

 * Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy (on Twitter)
 * First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon (on Twitter)

An editor has added Barack Obama's statement that "Hillary would make a great president" as an endorsement. I don't think that this is what "endorsement" usually means in the context of a campaign. He has not stated that voters should choose her over Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, or anyone else who gets in the race. bd2412 T 00:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree; Obama just said she would be good at the job, not that he supported her. An endorsement is "I support X candidate" or some variation. --331dot (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

General election front runner?
I doubt the value of polling in general roughly 18 months before an election, but current reference #2 is a NBC News/Marist poll with data from only three states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Hillary led in the first two states, and Jeb in the third. I do not think that poll is adequate to describe her as the general election front runner. Other opinions welcomed. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Polls this far out are meaningless. Just ask President Bill Frist, or President Rudy Giuliani. bd2412  T 03:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many polls taken from 2013 on that have listed her as the general election front-runner against a variety of possible GOP opponents, see Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. So that may be worth mentioning.  On the other hand, the results so far are no doubt swayed by her much higher name recognition and I agree they aren't very predictive.  At the very least though, this article should have 'See also' links to the relevant polling articles – see Category:Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 for the others.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we wait until Sunday?
We are 99.999% sure (all sources say) Clinton will announce her candidacy on Sunday. Her fundraising is kicking off and she has massive attention from the media. I absolutely think it is time to take this article away from being a redirect. We are definitely going to do so in less than two days' time anyway. Thoughts? PrairieKid (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:LAME. 70.215.73.116 (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no reason for the independent article not to exist at this point. There's plenty of media coverage now. Redirecting the title for the next day and a half does indeed seem lame. - MrX 02:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Obama endorsement?
I do not think that Barack Obama's statement that Hillary Clinton would make an "excellent president" amounts to a formal endorsement. If asked, it is likely that Obama would also say that Joe Biden would make an "excellent president". I suggest removing the President as an endorser, at least until he says something more definitive. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cullen. Obama has not formally endorsed Clinton--Rollins83 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is coverage from ABC News that states that Obama has not formally endorsed Hillary Clinton. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed Obama as an endorser at this time. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also not clear on the endorsement of Elizabeth Warren. From my following of the news, it seems Warren's approach towards HRC has been cautiously optimistic, but I don't remember a full-throated endorsement, in spite of what The Hill said in January 2014. I don't think that's a useable source in April 2015. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

These endorsements need to be much better vetted. There is one there now from Warren Buffet based on him saying in 2012 that he likes her views. bd2412 T 18:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, that has now been improved. bd2412  T 20:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it took me 2 minutes, literally, of googling to find those. :) Tvoz / talk 20:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was an expression of confidence or some such. GregKaye 09:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Screengrab of Campaign Logo
Hey guys, I recently uploaded a screengrab of the logo of Hillary Clinton's campaign that had "Hillary for America" and "HillaryClinton.com" on it's logo instead of the Geometric H with the arrow. Can someone explain to me why it was removed? I thought it would be more in line with "Presidential Campaign" logos, as seen with Clinton's 2008 logo that had the website ticker. Was it because of the YouTube/Video licencing issues? Thanks for clarifying DestinationAlan (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * was the one who changed it back, with . So perhaps he could say why. Stickee (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi everybody! I personally think that the new image was better, also because it was without the white background. Anyway, this is only my point of view, if you think that DestinationAlan's one is better, no problem, we can use it! -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty into converting the image to a proper SVG format. --  [[  axg  // ✉   ]] 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe one of the issues is that File:Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidential Campaign Logo 2016.svg is currently tagged as non-free, and thus must comply with all the rules of Non-free content criteria. Because of the existence of File:Hillary for America 2016 Logo.png, which is tagged as a public domain text logo, it probably makes the non-free logo "replaceable". Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Most people in the media are discussing the version of the logo that has the writing in it. Why isn't that the one here? 2600:1002:B11E:B2AB:D50D:8FD7:47BD:99AB (talk)<

Requested move 12 April 2015
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear and well argued consensus. Andrewa (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 → Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 – Consistency with the current name of the article about the person, which is Hillary Rodham Clinton. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The name of her campaign should reflect what she is going by and the campaign is referred to as; how many reliable sources are referring to this as "Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign"?  She herself doesn't seem to use Rodham much anymore, either. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008. Furthermore, there is every indication that the candidate intends to prosecute this campaign as the "Hillary Clinton presidential campaign", given that the campaign website is hillaryclinton.com, and the official campaign bio makes no mention of any "Rodham". bd2412  T 20:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, "presedential" is the wrong spelling. bd2412  T 21:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposed move (spelling mistake aside) as it isn't consistent with the previous campaign article. Quite frankly, I don't understand why Hilary Clinton's article has to be located where it is, but there we go. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that's that. What's more the main article is at Hillary Rodham Clinton. There is nothing to discuss here. If someone wants to change that article's name, they'd better get to it. This article must match in the mean time. The alternative name has been voted down numerous times. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you moved the page without consensus? The name of the page on Hillary is immaterial to what the name of this page should be; please name even one reliable source which refers to this as the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD and WP:RM, I have reverted this bold change so that the proposal can continue to be discussed. bd2412  T 22:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No discussion can take place. Her name is her name. This matter it settled at the other article. There are no grounds for this RM. Should I propose that the Obama campaign article be changed to "Bama presidential campaign"? RGloucester  — ☎ 22:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're free to propose that if you can find sources indicating that the campaign was referred to by that name - for example if you uncover a "bama.com" campaign website. bd2412  T 22:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the matter, it turns out that "bama.com" has been owned and used by the "Bama Baking Company" since 1998. I can find no evidence that the Obama campaign was ever referred to as the "Bama presidential campaign", but keep on looking! bd2412  T 22:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)I didn't realize you were the sole arbiter of whether discussion takes place or not for an issue for Wikipedia; pardon me. Please tell me who designated you as such.  I again request you name a reliable source which refers to this as the "Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign". President Obama is not referred to generally as "Bama" now or when he was campaigning. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Consistency with the biography title has little value here, in my opinion. More important is brevity, and consistency with the common name for the campaign, as well as our 2008 Hilary Clinton campaign article. ...and that's, that. - MrX 22:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no consistency. That page was moved unilaterally to its present title after move-warring. It began at the appropriate title. Please do strip this woman of her name. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The shorter name is by far the most common according to Google. The title as of June 16, 2014 was Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016.- MrX 22:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The title of the 2008 article, man. I was very clear. Her name is what it is. I cannot drop the "X" in your name, and you can't drop the "Gloucester" in mine. It follows that we cannot drop "Rodham". It is her name. It is her name. She made a conscious choice to preserve the family name that is her birthright. Do you dare strip her of it? RGloucester  — ☎ 22:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:COMMONNAME, specifically "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.". I once more renew my request. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * She is most commonly known in reliable sources as Hillary Rodham Clinton, as was determined at that article. What's more, MOS:IDENTITY specifies that we should follow the subject's preference if it aligns with reliable sources. Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed such a preference to Mr Wales, and so we cannot strip her of her name. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking about Secretary Clinton's own page, we are talking about her campaign. Please link to where Secretary Clinton discussed this issue(either with her own name or her campaign) with Mr. Wales. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In this environment, I am surprised no one has yet proposed to move HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton to HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Rodham Clinton. bd2412  T 23:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If Clinton really did complain to Jimbo Wales regarding the campaign articles not using her maiden name I find it questionable that there was never a discussion on the 2008 campign article regarding this since that would have been the logical course of action.--67.68.209.200 (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I call on an uninvolved admin to restore the page to this location until consensus is established for a move in this discussion; it was improperly moved. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already restored it to this location. Cheers! bd2412  T 22:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is not a full biography.  The full biography is supported by quality biographies that use "Hillary Rodham Clinton".  The same is not true for this subject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Her campaign website refers to her quite prominently in headlines as "Hillary Clinton". Reliable sources also call it the Hillary Clinton campaign. The campaign is not emphasizing "Hillary Rodham Clinton", though I favor the longer name for her biography, partially because that is her formal signature. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above arguments. The common name for this campaign omits Rodham. Stickee (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There's currently an effort underway to rename the HRC article HC. Until that conversation has been had, it seems wise not to shift this article. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per previous "oppose" arguments. Reliable sources, as well as Clinton herself, are referring to this as the "Hillary Clinton" campaign. Hence we do likewise.--JayJasper (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above reasoning. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, RGloucester  please see WP:SHORTFORM which specifically presents the following text:
 * Where a topic has a long or disambiguated title, and a shorter form or abbreviated form of that title is recognizable when used in context, unambiguous subtopics of that topic commonly use the shorter form or abbreviated form for conciseness and naturalness. For example:
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton, but Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, not Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008
 * The entire campaign is launched in relation to the description of the subject as "Hillary Clinton". GregKaye 09:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The entire campaign is launched in relation to the description of the subject as "Hillary Clinton". GregKaye 09:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The entire campaign is launched in relation to the description of the subject as "Hillary Clinton". GregKaye 09:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Authorized Committee above the logo, unattributed, unexplained, reads as promotion
At the top of the info box is a bold "Hillary for America".

What is this? It looks like a campaign slogan. Being bold, unattributed, above a campaign image, it seems to cross the WP:NOTADVOCACY line.

Template:Infobox U.S. federal election campaign indicates that this field "committee" is "Name of campaign's authorized committee, as listed with the FEC. Drop candidate's first name, "2008", or "Inc."), if preferred."

OK. So it may be the official name of the candidates "authorize committee". It begs the questions: What is an "authorized committee"? Is there a reference or further information for this "Hillary for America" authorized committee.

The best I have found is "Details for Committee ID : C00575795" found at http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do Data provided includes:


 * ID	Name	Treasurer Name	Active Through	City	State	Party	Committee Type/Candidate Office	Committee Designation
 * C00575795	Hillary For America	Jose H Villarreal	2015	New York	NY	Democratic Party	P - Presidential	P - Principal Campaign Committee Of A Candidate

Assuming this is correct, the bold, unattributed slogan at the top of the page above a campaign image still comes across as promotion. I think Template:Infobox U.S. federal election campaign needs some editing for format and position of the "committee" field, the authorized committee name should be defined as such, and the authorized committee name should be referenced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Careful, skillful crafting of a campaign is to be expected. Choice of a name, logo, or slogan is up to the campaign. All aspects of this nature are inherently biased toward the subject. Our function, if any, is to include any verified information about them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements 2
The section titled "Endorsements" seems also to violate the argument make above, "Wikipedia cannot be seen to show bias by displaying leanings towards endorsement or opposition of any particular candidate." User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Endorsements are a feature of many articles on elections and politicians; removing it would be a major change that should receive a wide discussion. It is notable for both current and historical reasons as to which notable persons and organizations support a candidate.(I'll leave the Opposition to a candidate as a separate issue, as I don't see such sections in any articles I am aware of). 331dot (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All politician articles running for president have an "endorsement" section, usually hatted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Opposition
I envision Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016, which I just created, without adding more then obvious content, as a place to include the major oppositional themes opponents advance. It may be hard to find good sources for the sort of general information which belongs there, for example, how is the theme of Clinton Cash appropriately expressed, or the themes of the Republican candidates or Fox News. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The opposition section was removed by without giving a good reason other then "unnecessary" which I think is more or less equivalent to "I don't like it." User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If he wants sources and want it to be more neutral, I think we can fulfill that requirement if you really want to pursue.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you, Fred, for bringing this to the talk page for discussion. The reason I reverted your edit and am opposed to a section titled "Opposition" is twofold:
 * a) It is indeed unnecessary. Every presidential candidate (and politician for that matter) is going to have opposition, whether it is from the opposing party, certain media outlets, or notable individuals. It is really not necessary or relevant to list the number of people who oppose Mrs. Clinton's candidacy. There is plenty of opposition, perhaps even more so than other candidates due to the nature of this candidate, but that does not require a separate section to describe the opposition of those individuals or entities. If people want to know who opposes Hillary Clinton's candidacy, they can easily find out using a mixture of common sense (e.g. obviously there will be opposition amongst Republicans and Democratic opponents) and basic news research to find out if certain individuals are against her campaign. Remember, the main purpose of this article is to describe campaign information, candidate viewpoints, and the progression of events (ex. debates, nominations, delegate count, etc.).


 * b) It is a violation of neutral point of view on articles such as these. Wikipedia cannot be seen to show bias by displaying leanings towards endorsement or opposition of any particular candidate. Including a section specifically titled "Opposition" displays a hint of bias. It either indicates there is massive opposition to a politician's candidacy (which is a subjective determination) or that such opposition is unwarranted and being propagated by supposedly neutral institutions (also a very subjective determination). Further, your specific wording at the end, describing the "conservative" media is clearly not neutral. While I personally agree with the assertion that some US media outlets lean conservative *cough" Fox News *cough*, it is still a subjective assertion, one that is not categorically established. Most importantly, no other articles on presidential candidates past or present include a separate section titled "Opposition", and there's a good reason for that: Just like the once proposed headings of "Controversies" and "Scandals", a separate section titled "Opposition" ultimately displays bias either towards or against the candidate in question, and as such, the Wikipedia community has removed such language from political biographies and candidacy articles.


 * Hope that clarifies my position on this. Nations United (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nations United do you have any examples of any other related article where such a section had been removed before? I agree that it makes the article non-neutral to some extent, however, it still provides some information that people look for.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot find a specific instance in which a section titled "Opposition" on a presidential campaign article was removed, but that's because I simply cannot find an example where a candidate's campaign article included a section titled "Opposition" in the first place. My claim that such language - which in my view includes headings such as "opposition" - has been removed by the Wikipedia community stemmed from this discussion from the Hillary Clinton talk page and the answer to an FAQ right at the top of the page that outlines exactly what I mentioned, including a link to the community decision that was made at the time. Nations United (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton? or some other section? User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm referring to that section, and the answer to the FAQ at the top of the discussion page pertaining to this subject. Nations United (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This, from Neutral_point_of_viewSegregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.makes some sense. What I envision is information regarding substantial oppositional generalizations about the candidate. Good analysis of this sort are rather rare. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done that now. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This information should be included in order to satisfy fair representation of all significant points of viewNeutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
 * User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Fred, but I don't think the edit you made has fixed very much of the issues I have outlined. It does remove the bias issues involved in having a separate heading, but there are still two main problems with including your contribution: that being a) it is, as I have said, really rather unnecessary to tell readers that Republicans and Democratic candidates are against her (that is extremely common knowledge) And b) the issue with you labeling the "conservative" media as against her is not a neutral claim, nor is it really that relevant for this article. Both statements are certainly not important enough to be included in the article's lead. Nations United (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will say, however, that if there were to be an instance (in the future) in which a media outlet receives significant and well-documented criticism for its conservative-leaning or biased coverage of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, that can certainly be included in the article as an event that marked a moment of Mrs. Clinton's campaign. That may very well happen. As of yet, however, no such serious criticisms have been leveled against "conservative" media outlets that are worth describing in this article. It is also worth noting that articles on Republican presidential candidacies do not tell readers that the "liberal" media is against them. Nor has this been a standard piece of information to include in other presidential campaign articles from the past. Nations United (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is inclusion of well referenced analysis of opposition whether it be substantive or biased. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by analysis. Your edit included one line that stated the absolute obvious (that Mrs. Clinton is opposed by the Republican party and other Democratic candidates for president) and a reference to what you have deemed to be the "conservative" media. The first part is completely redundant, and the second is, at the very least, slightly biased. I don't see what has been analysed and why it warrants inclusion in the article. Nations United (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This article in The New York Times "At Republican Gathering, All Talk Is of Hillary Clinton (None of It Is Good)" although without spending some time I can't say anything in it is useable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So why are you referencing it? I'm not sure why this article helps your argument. Nations United (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A separate "Opposition" section makes little sense, since by definition every single thing a political candidate does or says is opposed by someone. However, it is appropriate to include into the regular narrative sections of the campaign what the most effective or damaging arguments against a candidate are.  For example, John McCain presidential campaign, 2000, which is a GA article, describes the attacks against him for being temperamental to the point of mental instability, later attacks against his Vietnam record, and the rumor campaigns against his family.  So all those things belong there, but integrated in with the narrative, not as part of any separate "Opposition" section.  The same will be true of this article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An "opposition" section is the same as the shunned "criticism" section in articles, and a POV magnet to boot. An NPOV presentation should intersperse all viewpoints and not segregate them. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Arguments about why people oppose Mrs. Clinton's candidacy are absolutely fair game, and should indeed be integrated into the article. The issue I had with the user's contribution is that they simply listed three groups/entities that oppose her candidacy, two of which are blatantly obvious (Republicans and other Democratic candidates), with the third being the "conservative" media, a subjective and very broad determination. Nations United (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is another interesting article which might have useful content: "The Right Baits the Left to Turn Against Hillary Clinton" Sucked in Bill McKibben. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think there is a specific point worth mentioning from that article - or any article you reference - I would appreciate if you could elaborate on what that specific point/argument is. I read parts of it, and it seems like an interesting article. Like the above story, however, I am not sure what exactly you want to integrate into this article. Nations United (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Press criticism
Aside from these issues we are discussing, I would like to thank Fred for his recent contributions, which have improved the quality of the article. By the way, I thought the information you added on Clinton's lack of media availability was a good point to raise. I did, however, change some of the wording to remove slight POV issues. Nations United (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles cited are about Clinton's interactions with the press; they are not about criticism by the press, although the National Journal seems critical in tone. They are not about press criticism, for that they are primary sources and cannot be used on Wikipedia. The NPR piece contains analysis to the effect that Clinton is probably doing a smart thing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct the Record
The material posted on the site seem to all come from the media. Which seems to contradict the statement of the spokesperson who claimed "Correct the Record’s defense of Mrs. Clinton would be built around material posted on the group’s own website, not paid media." This has to do with questions of how much cooperation can legally go on between Correct the Record and the campaign. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheat sheet
"Connecting the Dots Behind the 2016 Candidates" User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you doing? Honestly, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your rationale or motivation for linking this, along with all the other New York Times articles you have referenced. Each time you post one of these links, you provide almost no information as to why it is relevant; in this case, you've said nothing. Can you please clarify what you are doing? Nations United (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It will be useful to others; however, examine it closely and you will find information about who's who in the 2016 campaigns. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's an interesting article. But it is incumbent upon you to explain why you are referencing it in support of your argument. Right now, I don't have the slightest clue what purpose these articles are serving in advancing your position. What exactly do you want to use from these NY Times stories that can be integrated into this article?
 * I would appreciate some input from other editors. Am I the only one perplexed by this? Can someone clarify what's going on here, as the editor is currently unwilling or unable to do so? Nations United (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am busy doing other things. I am not sure what you don't understand or why. Links to information about the campaign in reliable sources seem useful and appropriate to me. The question of how to use them remains your editorial judgement. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are meant to be used to discuss improvements to the article, whereas this looks like you just dumped a link to an article that generically talks about various candidates. I agree with Nations United that this isn't really appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article contains an elaborate section about HIllary Clinton. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with what the article is about. I'm just saying that dumping it here without explanation is inappropriate. The talk page is for discussions about improving the article. Until you have a suggestion for using the content to improve the article, perhaps the link should have been dumped somewhere in your user space instead. Anyway, there's not much point in closing the barn after the horse has bolted. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Links to possible resources are always welcome as far as I know. Many promising links, however, contain no useable material. The "cheat sheet" does not permit easy copying of names, for example. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Bill
User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/12/how-hillary-clintons-campaign-plans-to-tackle-the-bill-clinton-question/
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-the-clintons-a-big-question-what-to-do-with-bill/2015/05/10/1f5b6212-f4db-11e4-bcc4-e8141e5eb0c9_story.html
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/us/politics/to-avert-repeat-of-2008-clinton-team-hopes-to-keep-bill-at-his-best.html
 * http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/feisty-bill-clinton-takes-on-the-nyt-116829.html


 * I suppose there's no formal rule against this, but I'm going to repeat myself in saying that I find what you're doing very strange. Nations United (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an area I have difficulty editing. It would nice if someone else would summarize how the campaign will handle this "problem" and add it to the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself world. Most productive researchers/writers/editors here already have a backlog of things they are interested in doing, so posting requests for others to do the writing and cite formatting and so forth based on sources you have found will rarely result in action.  It's better to go ahead and try it on your own.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll deal with Slick Willie tomorrow. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work. Back to Plan A. The way the campaign relates to Bill Clinton needs to be included in the article, but I can't do it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination
Let's nominate this for the good article status. !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.197.57 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Dudes, campaign, like, just started! Take a chill pill ... 70.215.64.15 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede is out dated
The lede is outdated: "With only nominal Democratic opposition, numerous endorsements by Democratic leaders, and a substantial war chest, Clinton was the clear winner of the invisible primary months before the first state caucuses or primaries[3] and is widely seen as the front runner for the Democratic nomination and for the presidency.[4]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.16.220 (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mind elaborating which part you think is outdated? If I had to guess, I would say you are referring to the wording "nominal Democratic opposition", but I'm not entirely sure. Am I right? Nations United (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, Sir173.66.197.57 (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the last claim is out of date--It is from February. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.197.57 (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording to address the problem you raised. Hopefully that solves the issue. As for your second claim, I'm again not sure what you are referring to. Are you talking about the start of Clinton's campaign? The official commencement started on 12 April 2015, as stated in the article. It did not begin in February. Nations United (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The last claim uses source 4 which is from Feburary. With the recent changes in the race, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.197.57 (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't remove the source because I believe it is still useful and relevant for describing Clinton's position in the race now, but I did add another, more recent reference from 4 May. Nations United (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If Clinton had even one credible Democratic opponent the characterization of her having only "nominal" opposition would not conform to our sources; however, there is no source which identifies such a candidate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Polls vary, but there are a few Republican candidates who are competitive with her; therefore I will remove the information from the lead that she is seen as the prospective winner of the general election. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Her polling position may be quite strong right now, as is her Electoral College advantage, but asserting this early on that she is the favourite for the presidency is indeed presumptuous. Anything can happen during a campaign. Nations United (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Warren
I think it is extremely difficult to justify the existence of this in the article. It seems more relevant to Elizabeth Warren, but not this article. It seems like its existence has been contrived purely to satisfy fans of Warren. I agree with this edit by Fred. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly the most relevant piece of information, but I wouldn't say it's completely out of place. There's still a connection to Hillary Clinton's campaign, albeit a thin one. I wouldn't mind its inclusion or removal. Nations United (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Warren has been in the background as a Democratic leader with a distinctly different take on policy. Her defining characteristics, relative to other potential candidates is wide popularity and expertise. However, like Bill Clinton, she is more background than subject, in this article. A long, or short analysis of how Clinton's policies relate to those of her husband, or how receptive she will be, in office, to his advice would be speculative and difficult to manage in this context. The note on Warren in the article has that quality, being based inherently on speculation rather than fact. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the absence of some reason based in policy, this section will be removed again. An article should be about the subject. Some information about opposing candidates is appropriate, but not information about someone who is not one. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

POV
The combination of a lengthy endorsement section and repeated removal of the mention of opposition to the candidate results in an article which violates Neutral point of view. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. As mentioned above, the endorsement section is wide-spread on many articles of this nature. Further, it is not as though Wikipedia is endorsing the candidate herself; it is there to list those who have endorsed the candidate. As for the removal of the information on those who oppose Clinton's candidacy, I've already made my argument above as to why it is redundant and potentially biased to include such information in the article. I'm sure other editors will want to give their two cents on the subject, so let's wait for their contributions. Nations United (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That material is superfluous and useless in my opinion. Can you imagine having the same content in articles about other presidential nominees? Of course all of them have opposition, that is a given as this is a race for nomination of the highest office in the US. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Some information consists of truisms. The interesting part, is the shape and nature of the opposition and how the campaign handles it, for example, by never holding a press conference. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then include the interesting part rather than the truism part – while front-runners avoiding encounters with the press in order to minimize the chance of mistakes is not a novel strategy, it is still worth mentioning here. And note that the truism part isn't even literally true right now – so far she has only one announced Democratic opponent (Bernie Sanders), not "several".  And parts of the truism part could be added via specifics.  For example, if you find a source that says that the Republican candidates have spent more time attacking Hillary than each other, that could be worth including (even though it will change over time).  Or if you find a source that analyzes media treatment of candidates, it might have something on how much air time Fox News has given to pieces and views critical of Hillary (the Pew Research Center is a good one to try once the campaign really gets going).  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly normal for Wikipedia to list endorsements for politicians, but listing opposition would be extremely unusual. Certainly I do not see any violation of WP:NPOV here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is Neutral point of view, considerations of what is "normal" or precedent, in this case, other violations of NPOV, do not override one of the basic policies of Wikipedia. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is Neutral point of view, considerations of what is "normal" or precedent, in this case, other violations of NPOV, do not override one of the basic policies of Wikipedia. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearly I'm aware of the relevant policy, since I linked to it in the comment you replied to. In any case, you are misapplying the policy by potentially creating an enormous amount of unnecessary work for the project. Consider this example case: Supporters of Candidate A | Opposed to Candidate A | Supporters of Candidate B | Opposed to Candidate B --- Sue              |        Bob             |         Bob               |        Sue Billy            |        Elaine          |         Elaine            |        Billy Gertrude         |        James           |         James             |        Gertrude Do you see how the columns which list those who are opposed to candidates are essentially redundant? Now imagine if we apply your standard to Wikipedia articles of all politicians. We would have to generate an enormous amount of data that is basically redundant. It's much easier to restrict campaign articles to endorsements, rather than including both. Also, it is much harder to find data on those opposed to candidates. Endorsements are proudly published all over the place, whereas opposition usually comes from op-eds and interviews. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The example is a straw man. I put nothing like that in the article or proposed to. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a straw man. It's designed to be a simplified example of what you are proposing, albeit a little extreme to better illustrate the point. And that point is that putting in opposition to a candidate is more or less redundant. In most cases, opposition to a candidate is based on support for a different candidate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not support anything like this. There is no precedent in any presidential campaign article for something like this, and I don't see any substantive rationale for including any of it. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sustained POV editing continues User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Most of your contributions thus far have been accepted by the community. You created a whole new section titled "Strategy and Tactics", in which you have discussed Clinton's campaign operations in length, and have added new information in other sections. I have welcomed those contributions as I do think they have improved the overall quality of the article. The only instance in which your edits have not been accepted is in relation to your first contribution, as quoted above. Your edit, as I have said - and others have now echoed that sentiment - was clearly unnecessary and itself a violation of neutral POV. On this matter, it is you, not the community, that has "sustained POV editing" by continuing to push for something that makes little sense and is contrary to the established consensus on article neutrality. Nations United (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did it ever occur to any of you that a plaster saint that is always on script would not be a qualified candidate? And will be defeated by any warm body the Republicans come up with? The, so far, successful efforts to control the content of this article is a frightful harbinger of the Orwellian world some of Clinton's supporters are offering. The problem is not my edits, it is the removal of the efforts of others. Squeaky clean, only positive, no negative information, or links is not within Neutral point of view. No assertion of consensus, and it is only that, an assertion, can override one of the basic policies of Wikipedia. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While I do not agree with your alarmist sensationalism, or the addition of the POV "badge of shame" you added to the article, I am a little troubled by some of the recent activity. For example, this material was not artfully added (it was not appropriate for the introduction and it was written in Wikipedia's voice) but it contained some well-referenced and highly relevant content that really should be included in the body of the article in some form. Etonmessisthebest should be encouraged to try again, but offered guidance about where and how the content should be added. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I can "force" stuff in with powerful sources and proper placement; the average editor cannot; they simply give up when faced with repeated deletions. The POV tag is appropriate in the current situation. Simply removing anything that agrees with a sympathetic point of view towards Clinton is inappropriate. If well-sourced material is in the wrong place in the article or is not properly condensed and paraphrased the solution is to put it in the proper place and express the content better, not to delete it together with its source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not displaying the professionalism one would expect from an administrator. Your ridiculous character attacks and assertions are not only irrelevant to what this talk page is here for, but they have just uncovered your massive bias in favour of the GOP. If anything, it is now you who has diminished your credibility in presenting a neutral POV.
 * You're jumping to a number of conclusions, none of which, even if true, should diminish an editor's ability to edit (without immediate removal by biased editors) or to point out a gross violation of core Wikipedia policies. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What conclusions did I jump to? Am I to believe that the person who described Mrs. Clinton as a "plaster saint" who "will be defeated by any warm body the Republicans come up with" is a supporter of the Democratic party? Or perhaps you are not a Republican then, but a staunch right-of-centre Independent? In any case, your unnecessary and sensationalist assertions reveal a clear bias against Hillary Clinton's candidacy, a bias that has unfortunately bled into your editing. And that's when it becomes a problem. Nations United (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is not "squeaky clean" and has plenty of critical information on the candidate. If you want to add more, it must be done properly. As Scjessey has said, while there was some useful information in the edit Etonmessisthebest made, the way it was presented and where it was implemented was the problem. If you want to reinstate that information, of course you are free to do so, but it must be done in an unbiased, objective, and appropriate fashion. Nations United (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I chose to not "shovel shit against the tide," but to point out the tide, systemic polishing of a favorable point of view, the most egregious of which is the ridiculous section on "Endorsements," which is nothing but an ad, one which the Clinton campaign has not purchased. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder, you're barking up the wrong tree if you're worried about the "Endorsements" section. Every presidential candidate article from 2008 on has them, they are always hatted meaning readers probably never notice them, and they don't mean much of anything.  You can see some impressive endorsements in Fred Thompson presidential campaign, 2008 and Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012, but both of those candidacies went nowhere.  Because Hillary has little serious opposition her list will be really long, but if George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000 had been written at the time, it too would have a very long endorsements list (since his only serious opponent was McCain who was running as an anti-party-establishment insurgent).  Personally, I feel the endorsements lists are a borderline violation of WP:NOTADIR, but there's a cadre of editors that loves adding to them and it does no harm.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And this is where your bias, Fred, is hampering your editing. The Clinton campaign did not purchase this advertisement because it is NOT an ad. As has been said quite a few times before, the endorsement section is a standard part of every contemporary presidential candidacy article. If you are against the idea generally - and I'm sure there is an argument to be made whether an Endorsement section is really that necessary - then argue for its removal across all articles. Don't frame it as if this is the only article that has one, and that its inclusion is due to some sort of conspiracy amongst the Wikipedia community to paint Hillary Clinton in the most favourable light. Nations United (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See Promotion User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself. Read what I and others have said again if you did not understand it the first time. You're wrong on this, Fred. End of. Nations United (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

On the upcoming primary battles
In light of the subsequently announced campaigns of Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and other soon to follow candidates (not to mention the minor independents who have already announced), I think it would be appropriate to have a separate Wikipedia article on the presidential primaries, considering that the general campaign period (which I think starts after the 2016 Democratic National Convention) is a long way off. My basis for this would be the Hillary Clinton presidential primary campaign, 2008 article. My initial thought was to simply follow the 2008 format, but considering that Wikipedia has gradually evolved (policy-wise) since then, it might be best to discuss this first. Can anyone help out? - Zach Hontiveros Pagkalinawan (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We would certainly have to create a separate article at some point. Perhaps now is indeed the time, but I'm guessing at this point it's going to be a short article. There's not too much to write about. Do you think waiting until the first primary debate would be a more appropriate time? Nations United (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article got this way because contributors (primarily me) kept adding more and more stuff to it as the campaign developed and eventually it got so big that someone split out the major part of it to Hillary Clinton presidential primary campaign, 2008.  The result is totally unsatisfactory – the parent campaign article is missing the most important parts of the campaign and the daughter campaign article has very low readership because it requires multiple clicks to get to.  It's really pretty silly that we can't fit a whole campaign into a single article.  John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 did it in the same year and in its own way it was as dramatic as the Obama–Clinton battle.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I probably should have researched this beforehand. I wrongly assumed all presidential candidates had their own primary article. You raise an important point, one that I didn't really think of, but am now inclined to agree with. As you say, dividing the campaign into two articles does create a rather problematic split of information that could potentially confuse the reader. I suppose my only concern in not creating two separate articles would be that this one would end up becoming a behemoth. Hillary Clinton's unique status in the race, along with the mass media-exposure and interest (positive and negative) that she receives, will most likely force this article to be quite large. If it ends up containing too much information, we might need to consider a split. In light of Wasted Time's argument, I would rather avoid that outcome, but I fear it might be inevitable. Nations United (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton positions on issues in 2016 primary campaign
We need a section on positions she takes in the campaign which contradict prior positions, or which no president is likely to apply to themselves, such as rejection of fast track authority. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * An entirely separate section for that would be unprecedented and - like the other sections you previously proposed - would be a violation of neutral POV. However, adding and integrating that information into the body of one section would be absolutely appropriate and, I think, useful for the reader. Nations United (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Many, or most Wikipedia articles on politicians, members of Congress, candidates for office, etc., include a section entitled "Political Positions". Why not use a section labeled that in this article (which I have, in fact, just added to it) to enumerate any stated positions candidate Clinton has, or may articulate (not many, so far)  --  and pointing out, where appropriate, when her current positions differ, or contradict previous positions she has taken, or "flipped" on. You'll see in the revised article that I've included a skeleton sub-section on fast track trade authority, which you, or others, can now further expand to address the matter of her flipping on this, or on other positions. Professor JR (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you; seems appropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that you will end up duplicating the Political positions of Hillary Clinton article. That's a bad idea, because duplication of content invariably leads to omissions and contradictions.  For instance, the Political positions of Hillary Clinton section misses Clinton's summer 2014 and April 2015 statements regarding state-by-state or Obergefell v. Hodges, which are mentioned here, and the summary just added here misses her March 2013 statement in favor of same-sex marriage which is included in the political positions article.  A further complication is that per longstanding tradition, Clinton took no policy stances on most issues during her four years as Secretary of State.  Thus, what may seem like a gap in her record (such as on same-sex marriage) isn't really.  This is a point made at the top of the Political positions of Hillary Clinton article.  So the best course for you would be to add or augment positions material there.  The presidential campaign article should focus on just those policy stances that become important during the campaign, either because they attract or lose a lot of voters or because a change of stance becomes a big issue.  So if she loses support of LGBT voters, which she would normally be expected to have, that could be addressed here.  Or if her shifts on free trade and TPP/TPA/TAA cause her grief in a couple of primary or caucuses states, that could be addressed here.  But otherwise, this kind of material is best dealt with in one place.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The new section is, in fact, appropriate and necessary within the context of this article, as pertains to her policy stances vis-a-vis issues being widely discussed by all candidates, and of importance to voters, in the 2016 primary campaign. How about if this section is retitled as "Candidate's policy stances in 2016 campaign". Its purpose would be to briefly and appropriately include here her stance on the hot-button issues important in this particular campaign.  The other, and very lengthy (I dare say rather unwieldy) and more sort of a "for-historical-record" article,  Political positions of Hillary Clinton, could then continue to serve as an archive for enumerating and encompassing the totality of all of her numerous, evolving political positions on many diverse issues over her long career in and out of public service, many of which are not pertinent particularly to the 2016 campaign. Professor JR (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is to highlight political positions taken during the campaign which conflict with long-standing or notable political positions that she has. Suppose, for example, she adopted a posture in opposition to gun control during her campaign while campaigning in West Virginia, User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The point is to reflect what is being covered in a preponderance of reliable sources. Politicians constantly evolve positions, change their minds, flip-flop or whatever, but Wikipedia should only care about that if reliable sources have offered significant coverage of those changes. By trying to draw attention to those position changes yourself, you are advocating original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Wasted Time R's position on this. If you look at other presidential candidacy articles, some do have a "Political Positions" section, but quite a few others do not. And the ones that do include such a section are often very brief and link to the main "Political Positions of __X__" article. Therefore, I don't really see the need to carve out a comprehensive section outlining every position she has taken and will take during the campaign.
 * I would also like to concur with Scjessey's comment above. Fred, the point of this section - if we are to include it in its present form - is absolutely not what you stated. It may be a great purpose for, let's say, a Republican activist who has partisan intentions, but not for an encyclopedia that wants to present a neutral POV. If we include this section, the central purpose will be to outline Mrs. Clinton's policy positions during the course of the 2016 campaign, and yes, at times, when appropriate, include evolving or "flip-flopping" views on certain issues. That, however, will be a secondary objective, not the main one.
 * Finally, I need to point out that I am once again perplexed as to why such an experienced editor, an administrator no less, is making such unprofessional comments and edits. Fred Bauder's most recent edit to the article was entirely inappropriate. Why Scjessey had to revert and explain that this edit was not an acceptable contribution, to an administrator, is baffling.
 * This type of behaviour from someone who should know so much better truly puzzles me. Nations United (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfuckingbelieveable -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, I was referring to the edit by Fred Bauer. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * FredBauder is exactly right. Conflicts between positions articulated by the same political candidate at different times are virtually always raised as an issue in campaigns. Any candidate is held to task for stances now that conflict with any past positions (e.g. Romney on health care in Massachusetts vs. his stance on the then proposed "Obama Care".) As for Scjessey's call for citing only "reliable sources", for what Scjessey calls a "flip-flop" (his words, not mine -- nor is this terminology used anywhere in the article in question here) -- the primary sources cited in the article in reference to candidate Clinton's evolving positions on the issues mentioned are the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the National Journal! If we go with Scjessey's opinion here, and aren't permitted to cite those as a reliable source, we're really in trouble for sourcing any Wikipedia article!  As for the next few anonymous opinings -- I don't respond to anonymous rants by anonymous users, unwilling to show their face.  Finally, the encyclopedia entry here, as it stands right now, is perfectly fine; the section on the candidate's positions completely warranted; and the citations are difficult to challenge as unreliable.  (Guess Scjessey might prefer what, Fox News, or Huffington Post for sourcing on Hillary Clinton?)  As for this talk page section -- this entire discussion has gone on way too long -- and some of us have not enough free time on our hands for such unproductive, non-constructive silliness (which also is clearly, I might add, a none too subtle and transparently biased attempt by some above to slant this article in favor of said primary candidate -- the very sort of  POV bias strongly discouraged by our host, Wikipedia. (Cwobeel: Thank you very much for your constructive edits improving upon the article. Greatly appreciated.) Professor JR (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The evolution of political positions can be noted in the article by the same name. Here we should have just a summary per WP:SUMMARY. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel: You're correct that only summaries should be included here, which is what we are attempting to do, and will try to improve upon even further. Thanks. Continue to appreciate your consistently constructive suggestions and advice here. Professor JR (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you decided to call out editors that you have (wrongly) concluded are biased in favour of Mrs. Clinton, yet you make no mention of the blatant and egregious display of bias and partisanship exhibited by your "exactly right" friend, Fred Bauder. Nations United (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nations United: I have no idea what Fred Bauder's personal biases may or may not be, and don't know that user personally -- but there's no display of any bias or partisanship by Bauder here, and Bauder's comments and suggestions have only been helpful and constructive -- while some users just take lazy and sarcastic pot-shots at the well-intentioned work of others. If you were to take a look at Bauder's history of contributions to Wikipedia, you would find, as I have, nothing indicative or revelatory of either a political bias or partisanship in those many encyclopedia-worthy contributions. I might venture to conjecture, however (purely a conjecture, as I have no way of knowing) that you're probably correct that Bauder might not share your level of unabashed, hardly subtle enthusiasm for this particular candidate. (As Cwobeel exclaimed earlier about some of these comments: "Unf**kingbelieveable".) Professor JR (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First, let me say if you don't think the above quote from Fred Bauder proves a bias against Mrs. Clinton, I don't know what will. Second, you have leveled a charge of partisanship against me. As I have provided evidence for my claims, I would ask that you do the same. Finally, Cwobeel's comments, as I understood it, - and perhaps he can clarify - were not directed at me, but at Fred. Nations United (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, you should really cover your own tracks before making unjustified assertions of bias, I see that you created your account on 6 June 2015 under the name "Professor JR". And I can only assume - as you provide no information as to alternate account names - that you edited using your IP address before that. Well, for whatever reason, it looks like you are continuing to use your IP address after the creation of your account to edit your user and talk pages, which you really should not have done if you wanted to establish an identity independent of your IP. Why do I bring this up? Well, your contributions under your IP have been, in recent months, quite focused on the world of Clinton scandals/controversies. A number of these edits have been, to put it mildly, less than neutral. For example, here and here, we can see your edits to include a number of scandals (legitimate and not) associated with Hillary Clinton as "See also" links on this very article, something that is not only unproductive but clearly against neutral POV. These are not the actions of a user who is resolutely unbiased. And it certainly does not bode well for a user who makes assertions that it is others who are violating neutral POV.
 * I understand that anyone can make claims of bias and partisanship. What makes those claims credible is if one can provide evidence for such assertions. I have provided such evidence, against both Fred Bauder and Professor JR. I see no partisanship on the part of Wasted Time R, Cwobeel, Scjessey, or (obviously) myself. All have done, in my view, an excellent job in addressing the concerns and interests on both sides of the aisle. If anyone can prove otherwise, please do go ahead. I will - as I am sure all three editors will - make sure to address any concerns.
 * Professor JR, it is now incumbent upon you to start providing evidence. Otherwise, I ask that you retract your assertions of partisanship. Nations United (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What "assertion of partisanship" by me? (cf. "partisanship") That was you, Nations United. And sorry, everybody -- I am so done here, on this Talk Page. (As someone once pointed out -- Fred Bauder probably would know who: "correct answers don’t win democratic contests, especially when they’re difficult, complicated, and/or require one to do work. That is the dark side of Wikiality.") Professor JR (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I did claim that you had partisan intentions. I then provided evidence to back up my claim. And if you forgot, here's your claim that I was being partisan: "you're probably correct that Bauder might not share your level of unabashed, hardly subtle enthusiasm for this particular candidate." I am still waiting on your evidence to back this up. Nations United (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm late getting back into this discussion, but it seems my point above (about original research) was completely missed by a couple of folks, so let me try again to explain it. Fred was suggesting we have a section that detailed Clinton's change of positions - "a section on positions she takes in the campaign which contradict prior positions." My point was that we should only do that if we find a significant number of reliable sources talking about such changes of position. Simply listing changes of position (sourced or otherwise) without the context provided by secondary reliable sources would be original research. I don't care which reliable sources are used, just as long as it is a significant number across ideological lines. If a single source makes a big deal out of a particular change of position, the lack of further coverage obviously makes it fall foul of WP:WEIGHT, but if a handful of sources across the political spectrum talk about a change of position, then we can consider it for inclusion. It is important, however, that we report the media's coverage of the change in position, rather than the change in position itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This sounds like the sort of "gotcha" stuff that Grundle had attempted for years to jam into Obama articles. I'm embarrassed that a former Arbitrator is parading this sort of attitude in a BLP-related article. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is puzzling, isn't it? Nations United (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Fred, just referencing something from a random article is not enough to back-up the inappropriate edit you made. Nations United (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Reminder of Civility
Hello all. I've been watching this discussion and am becoming increasingly upset at how you are all treating each other. All of you are experienced editors. I've worked with most of you in the past and you are also good people. I will remind you of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PERSONAL. A discussion is fine and it's understandable that they can occasionally become heated. But I've seen vandalism, personal attacks and foul language during the course of the discussion. While some are more severe than others, I think you all need to reevaluate your actions. One other thing to remind you of is that we're all in this together. We're all aiming for the same thing here--the most informative and well-written article possible. You all obviously care quite a bit about the debate and about the project as a whole. You just need to channel that a different way. Remember, there are no angry mastodons chasing us. No need to be flustered. We don't need to all gather around singing Kumbaya but it's important that we are calm and positive. I would recommend you each take a day off from this discussion. WP:BRD back to the way it was. Consider your arguments and the way you've presented them. And we can all meet back here on Wednesday or Thursday for more discussion. That's only a suggestion. In any case, I hope you're all a little more civil. Have an AWESOME week, every one! PrairieKid (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Political positions
Invitations to other editors to engage in detailed setting forth of political positions will be ignored. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * However, in short: "Hold your nose and vote for the Democrat" will do. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a point in there somewhere that's related to the article? Tarc (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As usual, no. He keeps saying things like this, and I haven't the faintest clue why. Nations United (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the main one that keeps making inference about my politics on this talk page. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on your history, it's not a difficult conclusion to come to. Nations United (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Cautionary reminder
Both of you guys need to take a serious look at Civility, No personal attacks, & Assume good faith before continuing any longer with the type of exchange you are engaging in on this talk page.
 * If you look back at our early discussions, you will see that I did assume good faith when addressing the problems with Fred Bauder's first edits to this article. Our exchange was civil and cordial. The tone of our dialogue changed when Bauder continued to integrate biased material into the article, ultimately leading to this ridiculous rant against Mrs. Clinton:
 * It is at that point that Fred's biases were clearly on display, to which I (and others) reminded him that if it bleeds into his editing, that's when it becomes a problem. I appropriately noted as well that as an administrator, it was (and is) especially incumbent upon him to present a neutral and unbiased approach to editing articles of a political nature, something that he was (and is still) not doing.
 * I honestly don't like getting into personal arguments, and I do my very best to address peoples' concerns in a cordial manner. Above else, I do try to assume good faith - as I did with Fred at the beginning of our exchanges - but when someone displays in the clearest way possible a bias that bleeds into one's editing, I will call them out on it. Fred has shown repeatedly that he is not editing with a neutral point of view, which, as I have said, is particularly problematic considering his administrator status. That is not a personal attack. That is the truth, borne out by evidence. The only person who can change the nature of the dialogue here is Fred, through his subsequent comments and future edits. Nations United (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Known discrepancies in Hillary Clinton's positions on issues in 2016 primary campaign
We need a section on positions she takes in the campaign which contradict prior positions, or which no president is likely to apply to themselves, such as rejection of fast track authority. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Commentary by Thomas B. Edsall http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/opinion/thomas-b-edsall-whose-party-is-it-anyway.html :Until she secures the nomination, Hillary Clinton will voice the level of criticism of the TPP necessary to prevent the issue from serving as a mobilization tool for her rivals. Then, if she actually wins the presidency, she will most likely follow the path of her predecessor.
 * This subject was broached above but sidetracked. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My position on this has not changed. Is that information potentially useful to add in the article, yes. Does it need its own separate section, absolutely not. Why? It is unnecessary and would violate neutral POV. No other presidential campaign article has a separate section titled: "Positions which Contradict the Candidate's Prior Views". Nations United (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not need a new section to remind us of how stupid this idea was the first time it was suggested. The old nonsense is still above. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Fred Bauder is channeling, whodathunkit? This of course will not be happening, in this or any other article.  If one wishes to campaign for their favorite non-Clinton presidential candidate, then go to the DU or the FR, respectively, as an encyclopedia is not a platform for gotcha-style blogging. Tarc (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Clinton seems to be avoiding taking positions on hot-button issues where she might disagree with knee-jerk positions of the Democratic base. See Stumped. This represents avoidance of taking a position which conforms to the base which she may not conform to later. Not sure how to handle that tactic in the article. It represents avoidance of pandering to the base but also a lack of candor. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Position changes could, and should, be placed in the Political positions of Hillary Clinton article. There is of course room, and placement is prudent of exact policy proposals that she has mentioned in the campaign. Listing every monetary, fiscal, social, and international issue's position on the campaign article is unnecessary, but rather, her policy prescriptions for those issues is necessary.


 * As for media avoidance, I think its mention, while carefully composed, should be there. For Jeb Bush, his groundbreaking strategy of raising $103 million through Super PACs prior to becoming an official candidate is perfectly appropriate, because it describes a key strategy he has taken in his campaign. Same goes for Rand Paul's initial hostility to live interview reporters, or everything Donald Trump does. There is plenty of coverage, especially from the Washington Post, of her avoidance of media questions and evasive strategies, just make sure to heavily cite and diversify citations.  Spartan 7W  §  14:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post seems a good source, but its paywall is a problem. Being able to read all the better papers with paywalls gets expensive. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Here is a blog from 2014 User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia is not a venue for "gotcha" journalism or Republican talking points, so if that is what some really want to do regarding the subject, then I suggest composing your thoughts into 140 characters or less and tweeting about it. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tarc, we are discussing how to handle, in the article, the way Clinton evades or avoids responding candidly with respect to certain matters. We want to be fair to her. My thought, no clear source for it, is that she has, as a "policy wonk," methods of determining policy which are independent of political inputs. This is shown in her response here, what she refers to as an "evidence-based process." User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This remains a useless proposal. ALL politicians "evade or avoid responding candidly" on issues they are uncomfortable with. Frankly, in the current political climate it would be virtually impossible to win any sort of election without tiptoeing around the issues a little bit. When you come across a politician who rarely does that (such as Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders), it's a refreshing surprise and arguably noteworthy, not the other way around. Tarc is absolutely right. Wikipedia is not the right venue for this sort of nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia is not interested in your personal analysis of the sources, Mr. Bauder. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with what's been said, just puzzled as to why it needs to be explained...again. Nations United (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't personal analysis. Yes, politicians evade questions they don't like, but Clinton isn't taking questions. Her opponent, Bernie Sanders, is criticising her on not taking a stand on things, and not answering questions. She hasn't made any important tv appearances, articles abound from her exclusion of press, 'roping off' reporters. This is notable information when discussing campaign strategy, the issue isn't whether to include, but rather how to include fairly and objectively  Spartan 7W  §  17:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right in that "the issue isn't whether to include", because it most certainly will not be included. There is nothing newsworthy about politicians giving non-answers to the press or to stances on issues that shift over the course of the electoral season.  Republicans run to the right for their primaries, then tack to the center in the general election, just as the Democratic primaries fight for the left then shift to the center for  the general election  as well.  You and Bauder want to chronicle every "Clinton said X in March", "Clinton said not-X in July" and then cook up a "she's a hypocrite" section to analyse it.  That's not going to fly here. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, there are two issues here: First is the issue of documenting every policy position Clinton has "evolved" or "flip-flopped" or given non-answers on, and then making a big deal out of it, as if she is the only person to have done this. That is inappropriate and is POV-pushing against the candidate. The second issue, which I think Spartan was alluding to, is her general lack of media availability. That is worthy of inclusion, as Clinton has made herself more inaccessible than other candidates. I have already written about this in the section titled "Press relations", and I think additional points, put in context, are welcome, so long as neutral POV is respected. Nations United (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Precisely! It is as much a facet of campaign strategy as Nixon's refusal to debate, or Jeb Bush's new fundraising.  Spartan 7W  §  18:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That has absolutely nothing to do with what Fred is proposing, or what the heading of this section is. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. What Fred has proposed is entirely inappropriate, as has been stated numerous times by many people. Hopefully another explanation won't be necessary. Nations United (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If "roping off reporters" thing becomes more than the WP:MANBITESDOG than it is now, sure. The primary objection here is to the original We need a section on positions she takes in the campaign which contradict prior positions stuff. Tarc (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's see what develops in terms of good sources. That is what drives content of our articles. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User Edit-Warring with Themselves over Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign!
User:Nations United, if you can believe it, is edit-warring with themselves (!) in the 'now-you-see-it', 'now-you-don't', section of this article that concerned Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's inquiry into the activities of Clinton's aide, Huma Abedin (which the Washington Post has written may even damage Clinton's prospect in the campaign: "Top Clinton Aide Accused of Receiving Overpayments at State Department", Washington Post, July 31, 2015.) --- Is there a  Wikipedia policy governing edit-warring with oneself? --- Or, anything generally addressing, or to help in proscribing, instances of schizoid behavior by persons undertaking Wikipedia edits? We may need to establish one, if this sort of thing keeps up, or becomes commonplace. --- Professor JR (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While I believe one can make an edit just to expand on/add the edit summary(with no actual change to the page), it shouldn't be done to make a point that can be made on the talk page or otherwise argue with another user. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hyperbole much? No one is edit-warring with themselves, any more than one can arm-wrestle with oneself. The user just chose to convey a message of disapproval, via edit summaries, of your sub-par additions.  That is all. Tarc (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They weren't just conveying disapproval, they were disrupting the page to make a point(they state they were making a point in their third reversion). 331dot (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that Nations United should have used H:DUMMY edits to put together an extra-long edit summary rather than doing a revert-back and revert-back-back. But on the substance of the matter I agree with Nations United about the initial reversion of this material.  For now, all we have is an administrative dispute between the State Department IG and Huma Abedin over vacation and sick leave.  We don't know how that dispute will be resolved, and for sure we don't know what effect if any it will have on Hillary's campaign.  Yes, WaPo engaged in a little speculation about what effect this might have on the campaign, but that's what they have to do to sell papers and capture clicks.  We don't.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, I do understand that I should probably have conveyed my message in another way. I do apologise for that. Though not excusable, I would say that my actions were probably a knee-jerk response to constant and disruptive POV-editing by Professor JR. While I regret the methods in which I tried to relay my message, I absolutely stand by my argument. This latest edit is another example of Professor JR's clear POV edits against Mrs. Clinton. A few examples: here (note Prof JR's inclusion of his own - now deleted - "Alleged Clinton Controversies" article), and here, and here. Each time, users have had to explain that his personal bias (which is clearly on display if one looks at his editing history focus and his comments) cannot bleed into his editing. Clearly, I am not the only person who feels this way, as others have raised the issue on his talk page, which he responded by suggesting that a number of users were all in it together at Clinton campaign headquarters in some sort of conspiracy to paint Hillary in the best possible light. Perhaps now he thinks I'm part of Hillaryland as well.
 * The point is that there has been a repeated pattern of behaviour from Professor JR, and I suppose my frustration got the better of me after his latest edit. I say again, I apologise for that. I did not relay the message in the right way. The message itself, however, still stands. I hope Professor JR can work more constructively in the future. (P.S. I'm a him not a her) Nations United (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to get it, my friend --- just because you don't happen to like something that is counter to your POV, that doesn't make it POV editing by somebody else --- and I do take umbrage at your charge against me, above, of "constant and disruptive POV-editing", clearly not born out by my editing history. In fact, even the examples you cite at your here, and here links don't bear out your contention --- rather, it's pretty clear that you just don't happen to like the substance of those particular, validly sourced, edits.
 * Also, careful who you charge with what. It was not I who suggested that "a number of users were all in it together at Clinton campaign headquarters in some sort of conspiracy to paint Hillary in the best possible light".  Better check the "View History" tab on wherever you got that again.  In fact, if here is where you got that, it looks like it may have been Chrononem who first expressed some concerns to that effect, to which User:Muboshgu made the charge to which you refer, but which I took only as sarcasm, writing: "Truth be told, I'm Robby Mook, Calidum is Leon Panetta, SCjessey is Huma Abedin, and Tarc is the Big Dog himself. :rolls eyes: As far as I can tell, you're POV warriors with a beef against Hillary, and the four of us, and others, are trying to maintain neutral point of view for everything Hillary-related."  You should try to keep your facts straight, Nations United.
 * Finally, if you bother to take the trouble to check my editing history, I don't think you can point to anything to substantiate any claim by you that there is a "repeated pattern of behaviour from Professor JR" as you charge, in your rather ill-chosen words. An apology from you may be due. --- Professor JR (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm? No, we really are members of the Clinton Cabal, ushering in a New World Order by editing Wikipedia.
 * I did catch Nation United's reverts on my watchlist as they were happening and wondered why he would undo his edit, readding your POV material (which I'm thinking needs to be trimmed on Huma Abedin's page, BTW). Dummy edits would've been better, but as far as I can see, this is a case of "no harm no foul" on his part. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Really Muboshgu, it should be obvious to you from context that I was implying that you were an unpaid or underpaid intern rather than a millionaire working directly for the Clintons. Admit it or not it really is surprisingly popular for political campaigns to hire sub-par, unofficial wikipedians in residence to try and out edit wikipedians that encourage a neutral view of their candidate. I don't know that I agree with all of Professor JR's edits; But after watching Muboshgu and company team up to attack a single plea for citation I find it much easier to believe in the Professor's good faith. Chrononem   &#9742;  17:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I treated your accusation that I am involved in the Clinton campaign in any way with the proper respect it deserved. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring
The comment in question is tucked under a cozy, so it really doesn't matter whether it is removed or remains. If authors wishes to stand by such absurd accusations, then allow them all rope that is necessary. Not worth fighting over. Tarc (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Would appreciate if everyone would just leave this conversation alone. I'm not wasting anymore time responding to the nonsense that has been posted above. Neither should anyone else. As Scjessey has said, this is not the place for discussions about user behaviour. Have a beef with me? Take it up on my user talk page. This talk page is for article improvement. Let's keep it that way. Nations United (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren
The article linked does not state that she has endorsed Clinton. It was a letter from Senators urging her to run. That is not an endorsement. Please remove her from the list of people that have endorsed Clinton because she has not endorsed any candidate yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.122.44 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Revision 677101112 by Special:Contributions/Nations United, 21 August 2015
With regard to your edit-summary statement accompanying your 21 August 2015‎ revision #677101112 to this entry, wherein you query: "Do you understand what NPOV means?" --- you may want to take a look in the mirror. The problem with understanding what NPOV means with respect to Clinton articles may not be with the rest of us (based on a cursory look at your edit history of same, & your Talk Page comments on those articles). As John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote in his autobiography, "I looked in the mirror, and I was the monophysite." --- Professor JR (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the first time... Nations United (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

State of Record for Presidential Election
Will Hillary claim New York as her official State of Record for the 2016 election, or Illinois, or Arkansas or somewhere else (is DC even permitted?) See similar TALK page Issue under Chafee's Presidential Campaign wiki page. Does anyone know and could this be added when is is verified? This may impact the selection of the VEEP candidate, or in the event Hillary Clinton does not get the Presidential nomination whether she would be eligible under the Constitution to be the 2016 Democratic VEEP candidate (and unlikely but possible position)96.224.65.24 (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight coverage of email controversy


I have concerns about this photo and captions, as well as the excessive length of the section about the email controversy, and the excessive wikilinks (4) to the controversy article. This gives undue weight to the controversy, in my opinion and should be pared back. I strongly object to the photo and caption which portrays the subject in a negative light. - MrX 18:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I came here from the server controversy article and am somewhat surprised there isn't more discussion of this issue. Compare the length of this section to the book tour for example.  As for sustained coverage, it's by far the most written about campaign issue.  There isn't even a mention about how many supporters are concerned about how her campaign is handling the issue. Also I also don't see the problem with the picture and caption.  The picture is fine.  The caption is just describing the the setting.  It is no more negative then the "farewell" photo is positive.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an entire article on the email controversy: Hillary Clinton email controversy. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Demi Lovato & John Legend
Singer & Actress Demi Lovato and singer John Legend has supported Clinton on twitter and are performing at Hillary's Birthday Party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C00F:6270:C57E:5C69:827B:3E7E (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Receipts
Receipts are 77.471.603 http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=P00003392&tabIndex=194.211.104.84 (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015
Receipts are 77.471.603

94.211.104.84 (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for the catch. Took a while to figure this out though, more explanation would have been nice. Basically, the total contributions would probably be the best number to fill in here, but Bernie Sanders' page used the Total Receipts amount. So I changed this to match. If I am incorrect, I am fine with the change back as long as all of the pages are consistent (which I haven't checked other than Sanders). Inomyabcs (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate material - Political positions
We don't need two articles having the same content. All other campaign articles refer to the relevant political positions article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of article
The neutrality of this article needs some work to achieve encyclopedic NPOV. --- Professor JR (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In what way is the article not neutral? 331dot (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Tags are not badges of shame. If you have specific issues, please list them so that they can be addressed. Your latest edits to these articles such as adding an "advert" tag the main article is not acceptable. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Professor JR, please be specific. There's no need to repeatedly tag the article. You have our attention. - MrX 16:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. Specifics or it's basically graffiti. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Townhall comment
Is this new section even necessary? If we include stuff like this, the article will soon be longer than Tolstoy novel. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And we have a year to go... Sigh. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if this is a campaign article, it is a minor issue of the day, hardly reported in the press, rather low level mud-slinging nonsense. It brings the article down to report this as anything significant to the campaign. I suggest that unless it gains consensus in this discussion, both the chuckling about Fiorina and the enlisting in marines thing should be removed. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Note - what Wikidemon describes as "low level mud-slinging nonsense", that was "hardly reported in the press", happened to be rather widely covered (hello !) by, among others in the mainstream media: the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, CNN, and NBC News, as well as by People Magazine and Politico. If you don't consider those reliable and noteworthy sources by whatever your standards are, then it puzzles me what it is exactly that you might deem a valid source (??) in your universe. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC) (And, BTW, the rather apparent and thinly disguised pro-Hillary biases --- --- of those commenting here, would really best be tempered just a tad, and held in check a wee bit, in accord with NPOV policies, when you are editing political articles.)
 * Professor JR, you have a tendency to insert way too much detail into Hillary Clinton articles. Just because something is reported, it doesn't make it noteworthy. You have to make a sensible judgement call based on the amount of coverage something receives, but you seem to always err on the side of conclusion and fall foul of WP:WEIGHT. Another problem is that you very rarely engage in talk page discussion. You would find it much easier if you would propose edits on talk pages before putting them in the articles, especially when it comes to potentially controversial additions on highly-trafficked pages. In this particular case, all of this townhall stuff you've added is only popular for 24 hours, receives minimal (albeit mainstream, as you said) coverage, and has very little impact on the campaign (if any), which is why it doesn't really satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Therefore, I'm getting rid of it and I fully expect most editors to support that move. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And while we're offering advice, try to maintain some neutrality, respect for editing process, and collegial approach with other editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, is that comment directed at me? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is directed to the editor who just broke his talk page silence to express mock puzzlement regarding my sourcing standards, and feigned concern for Wikipedia's neutrality policy. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

These two users would do well to carefully review "Sanitize" and "Wikipedia is not censored", as well as to perhaps refresh their memories with respect to the fundamental definition of "bias". The fairly constant attempts by some to sanitize articles under the guise of all sorts of lame "undue", or "not newsworthy", or "weight", or "too long", or "doesn't belong here" excuses are not, in the final analysis, helpful to what should be our common purpose in Wikipedia of trying to achieve well-balanced, non-POV, encyclopedia-quality entries (as opposed to campaign brochures) --- and, in fact, such biased and persistent whitewashing efforts tend to contribute to the growing problem of Wikipedia not being considered a reputable or reliably high-quality and balanced reference source by many in traditional, respected academic and scholarly circles and institutions. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL. I've heard this argument so many times of the years, and pretty much everyone who used it ended up being blocked for POV-pushing in the end. People on the extremes of society always claim that the mainstream is biased. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * True, there's a familiar ring to editors tossing the term "whitewash" and "censorship" around political articles — an accusation of bad faith — during American election cycles while trying to cram trivial derogatory material about Democratic candidates. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh the righteousness of it... uncanny. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, I've removed this silly "media scrutiny" section. This article will document an entire 18-month campaign, and 24-hour media events (especially those ostensibly about somebody else) don't have a place here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet again, I've had to remove it all after ProfessorJR added it back with absolutely no attempt to discuss it on this talk page. It has produced very little coverage; already forgotten by everyone, so I have removed it per WP:NOTNEWS. ProfessorJR's tendentious editing is becoming troublesome. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * is doing exactly the same thing at Carly Fiorina presidential campaign, 2016. No attempt to discuss.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an untold story here, but it has no place in this article. Complete removal was the right decision. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Professor JR, This subsection is about a trivial matter, a possibly inquiry into job opportunities. It has no place in this article other than as an example of press harassment of the candidate. As to why Clinton mentioned it; that is too fine grained. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fundraising
I've reverted Fred Bauder's recent fundraising addition because although it is well written and properly referenced, it has almost nothing to do with the subject of this article. It explores the fundraising for the Clinton family and its related foundation over the years, but includes almost nothing about fundraising for this campaign. Something about fundraising is probably necessary, but this ain’t it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From my talk page: "Although your recent additions to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 were indeed well researched and written, they have almost nothing at all to do with the subject of the article. It is almost all to do with historical fundraising of the Clinton family and the associated foundation, and virtually nothing to do with the current campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)"
 * The point of the article is that the Clintons have become expert fundraisers who have mobilized a portion, nearly a commanding portion, of the power structure to fund the campaign which is the subject of the article. There is not a scintilla of Wikipedia policy which supports your repeated removal of this well sourced information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You have completely ignored every word I have said, so I am not sure how to respond to your comment. Let me rephrase: almost everything you added concerned the historical fundraising of the Clinton family over the last 40 years, and almost none of it has to do with Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign specifically, which is what this article is about. Does that spell it out for you enough? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article were about raising livestock but contained substantial information about Clinton's fundraising during this campaign, as it does, it would be a good source. You still have not advanced the slightest argument based on Wikipedia policy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That material does not belong here, but a short mention of the fundraising prowess of the Clintons and its impact on the 2016 presidential campaign should be fine. One sentence will suffice. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Just note that are expert at raising funds from wealthy donors, to whom she offers increased access, is nasty cherry picking. Just mention the financial prowess as described in that article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to do just that. Hope this satisfies other editors. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better than trying to suppress the study completely but does not contain major findings contained in the survey. Sociology and political science routinely analyze the economic status of political donors. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But what of that analysis is relevant specifically to this campaign? Info on fundraising for other ventures, like the Clinton Foundation, doesn't belong in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Anything that affects the campaign belongs in this article. How the campaign manages this public perception and succumbs or overcomes it is relevant. How much we include regarding such matters depends, of course, on sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Aura of corruption?" That's a rather extreme POV to bring to a political article. "Anything that affects" a subject — in this case anything that can be used by partisan opponents of a political candidate — is not a workable standard of inclusion. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The question for this article is how the campaign handles such perceptions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that there is such a public perception, but then again I don't tend to read partisan news outlets. My impression is that trying to portray Clinton as dishonest or corrupt is one of the early opposition talking points, supported mostly by fringe material, conspiracy claims, and hammering on controversies that did get some traction in the past. If so, it may or may not merit a mention in this article. Recalling all of the attacks of prior elections, if there is any substance to them, they actually affect the campaigning or the election, then they may be relevant to cover in the article. If it's a secondary talking point and blog fodder that never amounts to anything, then it would not be of sufficient weight to cover but may be relevant to some other articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is related to polls showing Clinton is not trusted. Those are main steam, as is comment about them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We can mention polling on different criteria, but I'd suggest doing this very carefully as these polls are quite fluid. Same would apply to many other candidates. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For example, Clinton is the most trusted on terrorism, according to this poll -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * may I remind you of WP:BLP? Your comment has been refactored. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

More neutrality issues, proposal to resolve such issues
Yet again, troubling editing by Professor JR continues to plague this article (and others related to the upcoming election). It is no longer possible to assume good faith, since this editor continues to make the same activist-style edits without making any effort to seek consensus on this talk page. Today, I've had to remove a section on fundraising that concerned itself almost completely with historical fundraising of the Clinton family over the years, rather than on the 2016 campaign. Yet again, I had to remove the WP:NOTNEWS section on the Marine Corps application, which other editors agree was inappropriate. Professor JR made no effort to discuss it, but simply reverted it back in with a snarky edit summary. And I had to remove a chunk of text from the "health concerns" section (which I retitled to a more neutral "health") that was conceived to show Clinton was unfit to be president and sourced almost entirely from right-wing media outlets. Again, no effort was made to discuss any of this.

I think it is vital that contributors to this article seek consensus before adding material, especially if it is likely to be controversial. This is the minimum one should expect from articles under discretionary sanctions. I would like to go further and suggest that all non-copyedit contributions should be proposed on this talk page first, so that the proposing editor can seek to build a consensus for changes. It will prevent the type of edit warring we have seen lately, and also prevent many of the blatant BLP violations we have seen, such as those introduced by Professor JR. What do other editors think about this proposal? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, I've had to revert the same stuff added by Professor JR without any attempt by that editor to engage in discussion about it. Again, I have pleaded on Professor JR's talk page and this time I've indicated I will be seeking administrator assistance. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You have two options: either engage in discussions and follow WP:DR, or stop editing this article. - -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD is the way to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would go ahead with reporting him to ANI, Scjessey. Professor JR has ignored and removed your comment on his talk page. He obviously has no intention of engaging in talk page discussion or acting constructively in editing this article. Nations United (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Said comment was archived, not as you claim "removed", and any reply to said 'comment-maker' was deemed by me a fruitless undertaking.


 * As for the other three users commenting here --- (always the same 3 talking with themselves in their echo chamber) --- they might be well advised to take a peek in the mirror before accusing any other editors of "neutrality issues" or tendentiousness.


 * I note that this entire section is solely focused on, and aimed at, me --- with comments like "troubling editing"; "continues to plague this article"; "no longer possible to assume good faith"; "activist-style edits"; "snarky edit summary"; "blatant ... violations"; "obviously has no intention of ... acting constructively in editing this article" --- as well as various admonitions like "You have two options: either engage in discussions and follow WP:DR, or stop editing this article", and warnings of going to ANI.


 * I have learned in life, that often those accusing others, are really themselves the ones guilty, or more guilty, of whatever it is they are accusing someone else of doing. Untempered zeal for a cause frequently results in that sort of blindness, and a lack of self-awareness. (And, at least one of the aforementioned users, by all appearances, looks very much to now be engaged in a degree of stalking.)


 * Another lesson in life that seems to have escaped some editors of Wikipedia ~




 * Regards, --- Professor JR (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's great that you've finally decided to actually comment on the talk page, but it would be much better if you would address the content issues and not the problems you have with other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

---

- Break -
I usually get a kick out of irony, but you really need to take a breather, and review the entire thread of this 'discussion, Scj., and maybe reconsider just who it is, in fact, that should address "content issues and not the problems [they] have with other editors", as you put it. Rather ironic, to say the least, that you would say that, considering all of your, Cwo's and Mub's comments and accusations here, which in my humble reading appear focused almost exclusively on "problems you have with other editors". I'm hard pressed to find even one in this thread relating to any substantive content issues, other than Fred Bauder's constructive points.
 * --- Professor JR (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

---


 * He's doing OK. Scjessey; most of the bias problems with this article originate with you, User:Cwobeel, and Nations United. Nevertheless, the point is well taken. Edits, especially controversial edits that Clinton's political opponents jump on, need to be justified in terms of relevance. The Marine Corp section is a good example. Everyone looks, at one time or another, at alternate career and life paths. But, what does that have to do with her campaign? User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The relevance to her 2016 campaign is the fact that she --- Clinton herself --- resurrected it and brought the subject up, recounting her claimed attempt to enlist in the Marines to a group of veterans on the campaign trail in New Hampshire in November 2015 --- which is the only reason there was any renewed press attention to that story now, and which was unverified when she first made the claim as First Lady, and was also unable to be verified by anyone now. Although something like that would surely be accepted into an article on, say, Carly Fiorina, it will probably never gain 'consensus' for inclusion in a Hillary Clinton article, and will no doubt be blanked and suppressed, with any editors trying to put it in being accused of bad behavior, or something. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unable to verify" is not the same as "didn't happen", which is what you seem to be suggesting. It was a 24-hour news story because it reminded the press about how it came up before, and then it disappeared back into non-notable obscurity. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, this problem does not belong on ANI. It is an ongoing problem with a controversial subject; Which is why there are already restrictions on editing it. We, big WE, can consider whether existing restrictions are being violated or how they might be modified, but I don't think Professor JR is acting any worse than those complaining about him. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 is what is in effect. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, you are completely wrong about the supposed bias of the editors you list. It may appear that way if you have a right-wing world view, but I assure you that speaking for myself I am only interested in neutrality. Secondly, you are wrong about it not being appropriate for WP:ANI. Although it would seem to be a content dispute, it is in fact a problem with Professor JR's behavior. Specifically, that editor's penchant for ignoring talk page discussions and editing without regard to the strident pleas from other editors for meaningful discussion. This sort of problem is exactly what WP:ANI exists for. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Now we're discussing other editors' "behavior" (in bold text) on TalkPages(?)?) -- that's really substantive and constructive. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC) (BTW - really heartened to know that we are "only interested in neutrality" here.)
 * It was a reply to Fred talking specifically about whether or not ANI was appropriate. How else am I supposed to respond? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * How else could you respond? --- Maybe you could throw in something about him being "completely wrong", and suggest his perception of the way things appear is limited by "a right-wing world view" -- Oh, wait, you did! -- (Really constructive, collegial comments.) --- Professor JR (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fred said: "Scjessey; most of the bias problems with this article originate with you, User:Cwobeel, and Nations United." My response that he was completely wrong about that is totally appropriate. Only people with a skewed worldview would think the neutral editing I do is biased, so that it what I said. Perfectly reasonable. I can't see why you should have a problem with it. Anyway, yet again you have failed to discuss anything meaningful. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Only problem is, editor Bauder in my view made a valid point in good faith, rather than being "completely wrong" as you keep claiming, about the origin of bias problems with this article. And -- has it never occurred to you that, just because someone happens to disagree with your views, that may not mean that they have "a skewed worldview", as you have accused him of, even if you perceive it as such? --- Professor JR (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You perceive a bias in this article (and others) that doesn't exist, so you try to add things to "balance" this non-existent bias in the same way Fox News tries to "balance" things by inflating and conflating things of little significance. But "balance" is not the same as neutral, which is why Fox News is so derided by everyone but the unhinged masses who watch it. Fred Bauder obviously has a worldview somewhat more conservative than most Wikipedia editors, but to his credit he works hard to stay as neutral as possible and engages in meaningful talk page discussion with an open mind. You would do well to follow his example. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * JR, you really do need to work on both your editing and methods and talk participation on 2016 presidential campaign-related subjects. You've tried to add the same coatrack material many, many times here and in other articles, and respond if at all to comments with tit-for-tat mud-slinging. If the self-description on your user page is true then you know exactly what you are doing, and should know better than behaving like this. Your welcome is running pretty thin. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ditto. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ("Self-description on my TalkPage"??? -- Can't for the life of me figure out to what are you referring?)
 * You'd do better to heed the advice than continue playing games. If you're a former scholar, professor, senior government official, advanced degrees in public policy, etc., then your calculated manipulation of the encyclopedia here is a sorry display, beneath any standards of the profession. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And you ask why I so infrequently participate in these always fruitless TalkPage discussions with you guys. I am so done here. Have fun ganging up on Fred, and congratulating and reinforcing each-other in your little closed-minded, delusional echo chamber. Ciao. --- Professor JR (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems, WP:WPDNNY -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just note, Professor JR, that if you want to continue editing this article, you must do so with a collaborative approach in mind. You cannot continue to make controversial edits, ignore other editors' concerns, and bulldoze your way through the consensus driven nature of this project. Nations United (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, "out of here" means restating his refusal to collaborate on the talk page, not an end to edit warring or accusations about other editors. I don't think they need any further warnings, both the edit warring and defiance of process rules are longstanding and deliberate. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, in addition to the disputed quote, describing the article as "lengthy", quoting it extensively rather than summarizing, stating that Clinton declined to be interviewed, quoting their campaign spokesperson, and describing the Citizens United decision and its impact on campaigns generally, are all unnecessary. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Related thread at WP:AN/I -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post survey
I have put in a sentence based on this major feature in The Washington Post. This a good, and major, survey. If you wish to use some other language to anchor it feel free but please don't remove this major source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You may be able to add from that source, only if you attribute the opinions, and focus on the subject of the article only. Give it another try. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, to use that excellent article and cherry pick the text as you did, is not the best use of that source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The material in the article could form the basis for an article. What would be a short summary, or at least some fact, that would be suitable for this article. Being good at raising money from major donors by offering personal access, and eager competition to gain that access, seems to be well supported. If you are going to remove the source entirely from my edits please make some edit of your own of something in the source so that we have an anchor cite. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the information in that article is of an historical nature, not pertaining to the fundraising of this specific campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But much of it is about the current campaign. The information is from a reliable source. There is no good reason, within Wikipedia policy, to delete it entirely. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, having sanitized the information contained in the feature, a lengthy apologetic has been attached. The handling of this subsection is completely unacceptable and not based in any part on Wikipedia's neutrality policies. Please give a reason of some sort rooted in policy for censoring the information, presenting a truncated, and hardly recognizable, summary, and then adding a lengthy defense. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Alleged health concerns
Re 's latest revisions: said edit/s are a complete stretch of WP:DECISION; readers of this article ought not to be forced into determining what health issues Clinton has, on the basis she apparantly gets confused. What health issue is confusion?

Might I add, Clinton is still well and truly alive, and therefore possibly controversial personal aspects of her life are under the umbrella of WP:BLP – and therefore said content must be written with every care for the individual in question. Should said content be restored, it must be in accordance to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, in that these "health concerns" are labelled as "alleged", and Clinton's viewpoint on these health concerns/or accusations are noted. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 09:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If is a real problem it is an issue. It certainly was with Reagan; whatever his virtues. I'm over 70 and can certainly get "confused." I prefer presidents, indeed any decision maker, in their 40s. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources show it was a temporary problem now resolved. There is nothing here that belongs in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It may have been an issue with Reagan, but this is Clinton we're talking about – not Reagan. Clinton is a living person, not Reagan. Clinton has a campaign article whilst she is running for president – Wikipedia wasn't even thought of in the 1980s. Hence, BLP applies to this campaign article, and it would have applied to Reagan's had he run some time in the 21st century (provided he was alive). Reagan had Alzheimer's disease which is a real problem and an issue – you or I or a reader of this article, should not make such a diagnosis of Clinton's health, and I don't belive for a second that the media is making that connection. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 06:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Policy
A reasonable case can be made that Clinton's election is much more important than the integrity of Wikipedia. After all, in the view of a number of people who edit here representing corporate and political interests, our neutrality policies are not a substantial obstacle; their eyes are on the prize. The issue is our policies. A sanitized article that fails to incorporate accurate information about the candidate is unacceptable regardless of the harm that might result from a better article. I cannot imagine any naive editor being able to edit this article, as well defended as it is. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Fred. You nailed the problems with this article, vis-à-vis the application of Wikipedia policy, precisely.
 * --- Professor JR (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Fred raises a good point, one that is a double-edged sword – it works both ways. One only needs to read snippets of this article's discussion page to read that there are plenty of interests campainging against Clinton also, and not for the best interests of neutrality, but to suit their own political agenda. The issue is our policies, that we cannot properly deal with such people whom are plain and simply incapable of seperating their political observances from their Wikipedia editing. Any "naive" editor is more than able to edit said article, provided they adhere to our encyclopedia's neutrality policies – it's not rocket science. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 10:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You write, accusatorially: "we cannot properly deal with such people whom are plain and simply incapable of seperating (sic) their political observances from their Wikipedia editing" --- are you by any chance familiar with the Biblical proverb: "physician, heal thyself"?
 * --- Professor JR (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite familiar with it, unfortunately. You wouldn't happen to be familiar with this active ANI thread that is dealing directly with Fred's concerns: neutrality and Hillary Clinton? If not, it may be best to place down that boomerang you're playing with, and read the discussion – you may learn a few things or two from it. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 11:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand the project if you think that Fred Bauder. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a voter guide. It is not journalism. Nor should we be concerned about influencing the outcome of any election. Offline, do what you like. On here, you need to check your political interests at the door.   —Мандичка YO 😜 17:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did. Which is why I'm very unhappy with this article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A reasonable case can be made that Clinton's election is much more important than the integrity of Wikipedia. Fred: Your comment is completely outside of WP's encyclopedic aims, our core content policies are non-negotiable. Please see WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:BATTLE. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely, which is why biased editing is unacceptable and outside policy. I was addressing possible reasons for feeling controversial material should be kept out of the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't ascribe ulterior motives to other editors. That's an accusation of bad faith. If you're the one repeatedly proposing or arguing for content that is inappropriate to the encyclopedia for being biased, opinionated, poorly sourced, dubious, trivia, etc., it might appear to you that others are trying to defend a subject when they are in fact upholding the integrity of the project. Wikipedia is a place where people with differing opinions and motives can get together and write a good article, it does not require that everybody have an identical neutral opinion about a subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a biased article. And very little talk about the problems with it. Just reverting of information unfavorable to Clinton and her supporters. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fred's offered a very provocative assumption. What it lacks in substance, it makes up for in nice sweeping suggestions. I see plenty of individuals discussing said content problems, like the point-of-view pushing that has been going on by at least one user (who has now been appropriately topic banned) – that may be the only reason as to why this article is biased. Otherwise, it looks pretty balanced to myself, and plenty more editors. Myself being an Australian editor whom has absolutely no affinity with Clinton (or any US politician for that matter) but rather, values a neutral point of view within articles on Wikipedia. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 06:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As a Canadian editor, I concur. Nations United (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel. How is this even a topic of discussion?<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Cryzio war from Libia to Vietnam and more ?
In this video Hilary cryzio: secoundly we have to go aftere everything from North Africa to South Asia... Us air and ground forces with they armies. Look at 26 minute +1min. Video on last Dem convent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.74.171 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

2008
Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign redirects to 2008...This should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:4000:8CD0:F180:BBC8:CDF3:9894 (talk • contribs)
 * It goes to a disambiguation page, which is appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hillary 2016 logo
I will like to read/add who is author of the campaign logo and what is the symbolic of it. For first glance it seem to be 9/11 inspired. 73.50.83.60 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. On Wikipedia, we go by verifiable reliable sources as to what the logo is inspired by, not the opinion of an editor. Regards —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 04:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggest that the logo be taken down to safeguard Wikipedia from legal attacks from the Democratic Party. The lawyers of one candidate from the party have already attacked Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.186.69 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's totally unnecessary. The use of such logos is covered under fair use, regardless of what happened with the Sanders campaign matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Failure to include reliable information in article
The information in http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-wall-street-ties.html should be included in the article. There is a pattern of biased editing of this article which violates neutral point of view. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please learn to assume good faith, Fred. Your accusations of biased editing are getting extremely tiresome. Instead of just throwing a link up here and demanding something happen, why don't you constructively propose something you would like to see added here, and then let us weigh in on that? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My edits using this material are in the history of the article. The material which replaced them does not reflect this reliable source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Vote for Bankruptcy Reform that Haunts Hillary Clinton" User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A more nuanced discussion:


 * "Hillary Clinton’s Attitude Toward Wall Street Is Subjective" User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please make any suggestions to improve the section on fundraising as it relates to Wall Street. I think the information from the Clinton campaign staff should be excluded. It is very self-serving, nearly like having the subject editing the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Fred Bauder: I agree with you that this should be included in the article. Perhaps in the "Fundraising" subsection?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Other issues that might be included
User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Use of husband and PAC for attacks.
 * "Sanders Campaign Determined Not to Get Knocked Off Message by Clinton Attacks" User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Bill Clinton Unleashes Stinging Attack on Bernie Sanders" User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Bill Clinton unloads on Bernie Sanders ahead of crucial New Hampshire primary User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Demands that women support her.
 * "Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright Rebuke Young Women Backing Bernie Sanders" User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Nobody involved in the Madeleine Albright-Gloria Steinem-Hillary Clinton flap has much to be proud of" User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Why Clinton’s feminist pitch is not working in New Hampshire" User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dismissal of the claims of women approached by her husband for sex.
 * "’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women" User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * These are all extremely vague. Do you have specific proposals/language, or is this just a wish list of negative crap you would like to see in the article? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * These issues and more can be googled. I'll fill in more specific sources. Please try to be more courteous. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You've done this before, Fred. You can't just toss lists of sources on to this talk page without actually making concrete proposals for improving the article. Use your own user space if you want a place to keep them. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I can. It is is better to discuss these matters on the talk page rather than proposing edits which, in the absence of consensus, can be deleted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can't. It is better to discuss these matters on the talk page by proposing edits here so that you can begin to seek a consensus for inclusion in the article. Without actually proposing something, your junk pile just sits here until the bot archives it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Fred Bauder that more referenced info about her campaign should be added to the article. Wikipedia is not censored, and this is not supposed to be a campaign ad. Fred's requests are very clear (not "vague"): 1) Use of husband and PAC for attacks. 2) Demands that women support her. 3) History of dismissing women/90s scandals. 4) Multi-million donations from Wall Street.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion
A suggestion for a criteria to include information about issues in the article:
 * Is there a reliable source that the issue has affected voting behavior?
 * Is the issue hot on social media?
 * Is the candidate spending time or money addressing it?
 * Are the Sunday talk shows or debate moderators or C-Span or the candidates' websites addressing the issue significantly or repeatedly?
 * Is the issue part of the talking points of significant opponents, their PACs, or advertising?
 * Fact based or not? An issue that is not fact based but affects voting behavior is notable in itself.
 * The supreme utility of this criteria is evident as results of primaries and caucuses come in and information is gained from entrance and exit polls. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussions on the talk page about the content of the article need to be visible. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming contests
I've removed sections on upcoming contests, per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a historical perspective, where possible. I suggest these sections be added (and presumably, altered) once the contests are over. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey: Yes, I agree with you. I "thanked" you for it.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing is contained in these relevant well-sourced sections which projects outcomes, only the current efforts and plans of the Clinton super PAC and campaign. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Zigzag20s - TY! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Fred Bauder - Nevertheless, it's still WP:CRYSTAL stuff. You can tell it's not appropriate from the very first phrase, where it says "The Clinton campaign is relying..." instead of the "The Clinton campaign relied...". It's obviously not "historical" (as in, past tense) so it basically falls foul of WP:RECENT. It's good stuff, Fred, but it is too soon for it. Please self-revert and then add it back (in past tense) when the contests are over. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have looked at WP:RECENT. It does not seem to apply. The strategies of the super PAC and the campaign are current facts. How they will work out and speculation thereon is what would be covered under WP:CRYSTAL, but that is not what is in the information added. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect to WP:Crystal, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The future events are both certain and notable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect to WP:RECENT, "Recentism as a positive: But in many cases, such content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information." see WP:RECENT. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to change Wikipedia policies and practices. The type of upcoming events that are certain to take place should still be phrased in the past, for example: "A hearing was set for July 4 on the matter" or "General elections were scheduled for November 6, 2016", not "so-and-so announced that they planned to do such and such" or "it was expected that…" The problem with giving up-to-the-minute accounts of what's expected in the upcoming news cycle is expressed in WP:NOT. It makes articles degrade, fast, by picking up stale content that requires constant re-editing and replacement. There's a lot of this mess across the encyclopedia, 3-year-old articles that are talking about future events that are expected to take place and either did or didn't. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My edit conforms to current policy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. All articles should be written from a historical perspective. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A negative characterization
"...the once-daunting Clinton fund-raising model, which the family perfected over years of Beverly Hills dinners, Hamptons summer parties, and rewards for donors like nights in the Lincoln Bedroom." "Small Gifts to Bernie Sanders Challenge Hillary Clinton Fund-Raising Model" How could we adapt this caricature into usable information? User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That article contains the information that 20% of the funds raised by Clinton came from donations of $200 or less. The headline is unfortunate for our use. It also contains the information that Clinton frequently must leave off campaigning to attend fundraisers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Fred Bauder: I've just read the article. My first impression is that it sounds gossipy, and that it would not be a useful reference to use in this Wikipedia article, which should remain encyclopedic and fact-based. I also don't think the comparative approach is particularly useful for us here. The Open Secrets weblink is fact-based, but it may be too "raw" without adequate contextualization, as it is simply a list of her largest donors, though it is true that both George Soros and Donald Sussman were already mentioned publicly during the PBS debate. Still, some of it does not make much sense. For example, why would Haim Saban donate millions of dollars to her campaign when her server had anti-Israel e-mails on it?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's another article in Variety, with more names of her multimillion-dollar supporters and two super PACs. The article also mentions another fundraiser hosted by Ellen Goldsmith-Vein and Jon F. Vein in Hancock Park, Los Angeles next week. I think we could easily use this as a reference to expand the "Fundraising" subsectionZigzig20s (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This new article suggests the Vein fundraiser costs US$2,700 per person.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead
How could we improve the lead and remove the tag? I think we should try to do this quickly.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was bold and expanded the lead. Everything OK?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not okay. "Marred by scandals", "murdered under her watch", "relies on super PACs", "give amnesty" and other phrases are astonishing examples of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations. This is very far from okay, Zigzag20s. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it has been marred by many scandals (classified e-mails, Benghazi, secret speeches, donations from billionaires). Those are simple facts. This is not supposed to be a campaign ad--simply to reflect reality. As for amnesty--doesn't she want to legalize Hispanics who are in the US illegally? I don't think it's POV to say that. But how would you expand the lead?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Words like these should only be used in quotes, never in Wikipedia's voice. Read WP:WORDS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP so you can see where you horribly went wrong here. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there was a tag for an entire month and no one was doing anything about it. I tried to be bold. Now you have shrunk the lead so much that the tag should be added again. But perhaps you could be more constructive and expand the lead?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree the lead needs expanding. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do, and so did the person who had added the tag. It fails to summarize the entire article, which is what a lead should do. My lead did, yet you removed it. Please be constructive!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Scjessey's POV concerns aside, I don't see a whole lot in the proposed addition that fits the usual subject of presidential campaign ledes. For comparison you might check out Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and all the other major party candidates that made it to Super Tuesday in years past. When all is done, the lede will probably be worth 3-4 paragraphs whether she wins or loses the nomination – if she wins, this article will get renamed to the primary campaign and there will be a new article for the post-primary. Looking at those old ones, the first paragraph is about the announcement and early fundraising, and the second is about who has the lede, the early primaries, etc. The lede doesn't really go into scandals, controversies, policy positions, endorsements, and so on. Even the Howard Dean presidential campaign, 2004 article lead doesn't include the Dean Scream, one of the most memorable campaign events of any candidate anywhere! - Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidemon: Can you please do it? I tried to help based on the way she's presented herself, but all my good work was removed. This is exhausting.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your version of the lede is negatively biased. It fails to meet basic requirements of neutrality. Our article cannot be the talking points of Fox News or the Republican candidates. I like the existing lede, for now. It will be revised later as events warrant. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought it was fair and balanced (I'm joking). But seriously, please assume good faith. There was a tag suggesting the lead was too short and I expanded it to be helpful...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Billionaire donors
User:Scjessey: Why did you remove the fact that at least three of Clinton's donors are billionaires?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the article is about Hillary Clinton's campaign, not the donors. If people want to know about the donors they can click on the links. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that she has specifically billionaire donors is remarked and discussed by numerous reliable sources. It is WP:DUE to mention in her campaign article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * She doesn't have any "billionaire donors" at all. The maximum allowable donation is $2,700 if I remember correctly. You are confusing Clinton's campaign (what this article is about) with the independent Super PACs, which have their own articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this article includes within its scope all major material and financial contributions to it. A separate article or articles on PACs seems quite unfriendly to readers. It is important, however, that this article clearly differentiates between acts and funding of the candidate and those of PACs. So large donations by individuals to PACs should be clearly identified if included. There are only a few, actually 2 or 3. George Soros and a couple of others. George Soros is hardly "Wall Street" although there might be ways a government official could render his tax bills and methods of working more or less difficult. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Donald Sussman is a hedge fund manager if ever there was one, for example. It is possible that he donated US$2,505,400 for the fun of it, with no regards whatsoever for the ongoing United States–Cuban Thaw. He seems very philanthropic, and he is probably a lovely man. But Clinton has repeatedly cast "hedge fund guys" in a bad light, so she has essentially created suspicion among the American people.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think the Super PACs are for, if not her campaign?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When people say "billionaire donors" they are referring to donations to the Super PACs that are for supporting Clinton's campaign. There are numerous reliable sources covering this and it is completely relevant to her campaign.--ICat Master (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But we don't need to say "billionaire donors" in the article. Neither Clinton nor her campaign have any control over who donates to these completely independent Super PACs. It is fine to say certain Super PACs support her campaign, but when we start talking about who donates to the Super PACs we are getting into undue weight. We don't see the same level of detail in the articles of GOP candidates, so why are some editors keen to shoehorn it into this article? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is undue, as it has received a lot of coverage in the media, not only in the press but also during one of the debates. She has criticized hedge fund managers in her speeches, and yet "At the same time, however, Clinton continues to collect money from financiers who are benefiting from some of the deals she decries.". Also, "Hillary Clinton continues to be powered, in part, by millionaires and billionaires" and Billionaire gives $6 million to super PAC backing Hillary Clinton, etc...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All of those articles quite rightly state the donors are donating to the Super PACs, not Hillary Clinton. It is important that this article remains focused on the subject, and not wander into the territory of talking about other subjects. If you are going to insist on adding this to the article, can I expect the same enthusiasm from you on the articles for all the other candidates? Every GOP candidate is supported by Super PACs with big donors, and even Bernie has big donors in the form of labor union Super PACs. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This talkpage is about HRC's campaign (nothing else), which is vastly bankrolled by billionaires and Wall Street largesse, as all those references suggest. The Super PACs support the campaign; they're not collecting donations for any other reason. The media has focused on her billionaire donations from "hedge fund guys" because she started her campaign by disparaging them, as the CNN video shows.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is a totally inaccurate statement. Hillary Clinton's campaign (what this article is about) cannot be "bankrolled by billionaires and Wall Street largesse" because that would be illegal. As I recall, $2,700 is the maximum any donor can contribute to the campaign. You are conflating one thing with another. Go and all this crap to the pages for the Super PACs where they belong. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey, you are arguing a distinction in law, not a distinction in fact. As I sit at home during the campaign season the flood of advertising comes from both sources. It is all part of the campaign, regardless of adherence to the letter of the law. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. It is both law and fact. That's like saying a TV commercial for the American Petroleum Institute is the same as a TV commercial for Exxon. Wikipedia must maintain standards higher than some editors seem to prepared to adhere to hold to. How unfortunate. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Fred Bauder on this one. When I (and most people) say "campaign", we are not just thinking about the legal definition of a campaign, which no one understands anyway. We are also thinking about the extra free speech that Citizens United has given HRC, which she enjoys to the fullest extent possible (with the help of billionaires!); the same freedom of speech that she claims she wants to take away from other candidates, as she keeps saying she wants to overturn the SCOTUS decision (when she no longer needs it!). The media is going bananas over this because she claims billionaires and hedge fund managers are evil, but she enjoys their hard-earned cash. This is not comparable to the GOP candidates, who don't want to overturn the decision and who want to encourage every American to become a philanthropic billionaire or hedge fund manager if they want to. HRC claims she wants to restrict free speech and keeps saying the rich are bad people, all the while enjoying their largesse; besides, she has an estimated wealth of over US$30 million herself. The media is simply calling her out on her double standards.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We are literally arguing over one word ("billionaire") to refer to Haim Saban, Thomas Tull and George Soros, all three of which are billionaires and have contributed to her campaign/Super PACs. Is there much point in arguing over this? It's becoming a little tedious.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Coughing attacks
I have restored referenced information about HRC's coughing attack, which was removed by User:Nations United with no consensus. She was coughing at the MSNBC town hall again a few days ago. It's clearly a huge problem. Apparently she's had three full-blown coughing attacks so far.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So huge that I support its removal. People cough all the time (surprise!), just because it makes it in the media - does not make it relevant or in anyways appropriate for Wikipedia. In 10 years, I don't think her "coughing attacks" will be relevant. In fact, I don't think they will be relevant at all, within a year. Silly addition. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 11:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not silly, given her old age and other health concerns. And it happens constantly. It does not look normal.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove it without consensus?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for consensus to be reached for its addition. You added said content, not even a week later another user removes it. You restore it again, I removed it. Clearly, you can see: you need to get consensus, as you already have a couple editors who disagree with its addition.
 * And might I remind you: Clinton is a living person. She may be old, but that does not mean you are allowed to draw the conclusion which you are implying: that her coughing attacks are a health concern. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 11:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they had trimmed it. User:Scjessey said in the edit summary, "that should be discussed first". Why do you want to remove it? Her coughing attacks are constant and very long and frightening. Nobody knows for sure how serious her health problems are, but the American people and the media are clearly concerned about this. I think it's fair to say it has become an issue in her campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, it is a health concern. "In a statement issued last July, Clinton's campaign confirmed that the former State secretary is suffering from hypothyroidism and allergies, adding that she is taking medication to treat an underactive thyroid.". Not sure why you removed this referenced info with the direct quote?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, so now three editors oppose its addition, only for different reasons. So how about we have that discussion then, and allow for editors to chip in their thoughts. My reasoning is simple: coughing attacks, no matter how public or private or how "very long and frightening" as you claim them to be — are not newsworthy. A fail of the 10 year test. Consensus, can however, change. Who knows? those coughing attacks can be extremely serious, and something bad could happen down the track; but thats the point: Nothing has happened, except coughing attacks. You don't have to be old to have coughing attacks. Everybody has coughing attacks, everybody gets sick — human nature is not a health concern, nor is it something relevant in a presidential campaign article, if any article for that matter (unless it's a health related article, of course). Should Clinton suffer something serious due to the coughing, or since the coughing, I have no opposition whatsover to its addition to the article. On its own however? its coughing attacks – big deal. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 11:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about her campaign, not her entire life. Her coughing attacks have been recurrent throughout her campaign, and they have attracted significant media coverage. Her staff has admitted she is taking medication for them, so it is clearly a health concern. We have a section here about her "health", where it makes perfect sense to add this info. I don't think this should be redacted from this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * People take medications for all sorts of things that are not at all life-threatening or serious: and? not newsworthy. I do think it should be redacted, because if we were to add all recentism-related content to this article... well let's just rewrite MOS, change BLP, to allow for a WikiNews-style article. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 12:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't get to decide what is newsworthy or not as a Wikipedia editor; the media does. It has been a health concern during the course of her campaign and we have a section about her health during the campaign, so it should be there. The campaign itself is limited in time and "recentist" in nature; I doubt many people look at the article about her failed 2008 campaign much any more, and yet we kept the article. There is no good reason to redact this referenced information.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We have the 10 year test for a reason, and hence: Clinton's unsuccessful campaign in 2008 actually is newsworthy – I actually don't think I need to debate that any further, because I think the suggestion that her - or any other failed US Presidential campaign is no longer relevant – is absurd. You're comparing Presidential campaigns to coughing attacks. Coughing attacks, in a years time (should nothing spectacular happen because of them) will be exactly what they are: coughing attacks – care factors around the globe will be zero. There are no good reasons to retain said content either. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 12:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that I don't think we should create an article about Hillary Clinton's history of coughing attacks. But it has all its place in a subsection about her health in this article about her 2016 campaign, as it has been a recurrent problem throughout this campaign and she is taking medications for it.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because we have a health section, does not mean we should add every single thing that comes under the domain of health? we ought to add signficant health issues, not insignificant tittle-tattle that belongs on WikiNews, not a Wikipedia article. Again: I agree with you that said section ought to exist – but only for substantive issues, not coughing attacks. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, given the extensive media coverage it has gotten, I believe you are wrong. It is not trivial. It is recurrent and concerning. And the media thinks it is significant. Your personal opinion is of no concern. Please familiarize yourself with I just don't like it.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Likewise, familiarise yourself with the 10 year test whilst you're at it, because coughing is trivial. Oh, and the media thinks a lot of things are significant: like her hair, her appearance, her clothes = all fluff. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should leave this material out. It's fairly trivial. If it gets ongoing coverage over the course of the campaign, in several mainstream news sources, then we could consider adding it. - MrX 13:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:MelbourneStar: I'm sorry, I don't think your 10 year test applies here. Any article on a campaign is recentist in nature. She has had recurrent coughing attacks throughout her campaign and this fact will never change. Even in 10 years, it will still be true. She coughed a lot at the recent MSNBC town hall. And she had major coughing attacks when was talking about Benghazi, Israel, and African-Americans. Nobody knows if her coughing attacks are Freudian slips; that's not the point. What the media is reporting is that she keeps coughing during her campaign; it is an issue during the campaign; she takes medication and it seems serious. This article is not a campaign ad; we report the truth, based on third-party references.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * user: MrX: It's gotten significant media coverage. Google "Clinton coughing" if you like.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 10 year test applies here because it is on something as trivial and insignificant as coughing. When people think about the 2016 election, Clinton's campaign and what not – I seriously doubt they are going to consider her coughing attacks. And we don't report anything – WikiNews does. We add encyclopedic material to articles – not coughing attacks. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Newsmax, WND, DailyMail, and Washington Times are poor sources.- MrX 13:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:MelbourneStar: I believe it is encyclopedic, as it is recurrent and she is taking medication for it. It's not like she coughed once. She coughs constantly, and she has full-blown coughing attacks when she talks about sensitive issues. That may be Freudian or unrelated--nobody knows for sure.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * user: MrX: The liberal media has also covered it. As have The New York Times ("Mrs. Clinton had a coughing fit that stopped testimony for two minutes."), Bloomberg ("At one point, as she was overcome by a coughing fit and struggled to regain her speech"), NBC News ("Clinton Suffers Coughing Attack During Harlem Speech"), The Boston Herald ("Cough not a sign that Hillary Clinton is choking"), etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If or when it's confirmed to be something more than a coughing attack - I'd consider supporting adding it back to said article. Until then, no. I stand very much by the fact that a cough is a cough, and is a trivial matter. I would, however, consider what other members of our community believe too. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 14:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

She's got a fucking cold. Big fucking deal. When the media has mentioned her cough, it has only been in passing. For example, the MSNBC embedded reporter mentioned yesterday during the Nevada coverage that she's had a cold which is causing her to cough a lot, but that she's otherwise perfectly fine. Enough with this "the American people are concerned" bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, what you are doing is original research--we don't know if she's had a series of colds since the beginning of the campaign. We do know that she has been taking medication for it and that it happens often, with at least three major coughing attacks during speeches about Benghazi, Israel and African-Americans. Again, our role is not to opine or do OR; this info has received significant media coverage and nobody could deny that. It is a significant campaign issue (not trivial), based on the extent of the media coverage.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Nobody could deny that." I can. I'm denying it. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Please stop your anti-Clinton editing extravaganza. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I have zero opinion about this. The media does. By denying it, you would be expressing your opinion, which is POV. Please try to be serious and stick to the sources (the national media).Zigzig20s (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't make me laugh. Virtually every change you have made or proposed across all the Clinton-related articles has been to attack her or put a negative spin on things. She's got a little cough and you make it sound as if it's a grave health issue. You claim she "supports the mass incarceration of blacks". You claim she gave "secret" speeches, even though everyone knew about them. It's a pattern with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I love HRC. But that's not the point. Her coughing attacks have received significant media coverage, and it has been addressed by her campaign staff. It would be POV to redact it from this article. Again, this is not supposed to be a campaign ad. We are supposed to remain neutral. Please assume good faith and stick to editing in a NPOV manner with third-party references, without personal attacks or swearwords! In any case, the media believes this is a campaign issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Serious health issues would be notable. Allergies and their symptoms are not, nor is hypothyroidism. Reliable media can be counted on to cover medical issues which might affect her performance as president. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a physician. Again, I think it would be original research to opine over whether this is serious or not. We do not know. It looks serious on camera (and possibly Freudian), but in any case, I believe it has received sufficient media coverage to be added to this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, consensus is not with you. So no. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:The Four Deuces: Would you not agree that her coughing attacks have received sufficient media coverage to appear in this article? See some of the links above.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)