Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 10

Some discussion
We were having a discussion about the content of the Goldman Sachs speech transcripts earlier, but it was closed by an editor (who also closed another topic shortly after), and I was asked to re-start it here. I am confused, but happy to do as I'm told. Tentatively, I suggest adding, "Clinton campaigned for more financial regulations, yet in a private speech she told Goldman Sachs the opposite.". The source I am using is:

We could also add:


 * "Years later, however, Clinton told her Goldman Sachs audience it was “an oversimplification” to blame “our banking system causing this everywhere”, the email excerpts show. “There’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened,” she said in a 2013 speech, according to the leaked excerpts, “with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? “You guys help us figure it out and let’s make sure we do it right this time.”"

Would that be OK? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No, that's a pretty egregious misrepresentation of the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. A hideous misrepresentation. The sources say nothing even close to what you suggest. Neutralitytalk 03:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How would you rephrase it please? I am happy to hear suggestions--that's why I started this topic. Of course, as long as she won't release the full transcripts, it is hard to know exactly what her policy positions are--but this is as good as it gets until she does, so we should include something. Thanks again for your interest.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with the longstanding language that is already in the article: "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations, including Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks. The speeches, and Clinton's not releasing their transcripts, would be raised as an issue by her opponents during the upcoming primary and general election campaigns." Neutralitytalk 03:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're off topic. This is about the content of the speeches, as the title and first sentence suggest. Specifically, her various policy positions on financial regulations or lack thereof. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this failure to understand on your part is willful or not, but Clinton's "positions on financial regulations" is described at political positions of Hillary Clinton and in multiple primary and secondary sources. There is little or no direct tie between that issue and "the content of the speeches" and no reliable source that I have seen indicates anything solid to the contrary. Neutralitytalk 03:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you not read The Guardian? Please see above (and direct quote). This is happening in the midst of her campaign, so I believe it is relevant to her campaign, as per RS weight. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article does not indicate that Clinton's speeches was at odds with her publicly stated and well-known positions on financial regulation. So no, we're not going to shoehorn in some innuendo into the article that isn't clearly supported by a reliable, cited source. Neutralitytalk 04:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And I quote from The Guardian: "Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, similarly struggled to answer questions about the purported excerpts, including a 2013 speech to Goldman Sachs bankers which discussed Clinton having a separate “public and a private position”.".Zigzig20s (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And the article goes on to say that this could have been a reference to a public position and what a person is willing to concede in a legislative-negotiation context. You want to insert text based on a distortion, or at the very best a stretching, of the source. I'm not going to engage with you anymore on this point because it's an absolutely fruitless endeavor. Neutralitytalk 04:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Mook and Podesta try to pretend there's no difference, but The Guardian suggests otherwise (see quote above). Now from The New York Times: Also:
 * "Most strikingly, Mrs. Clinton did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation, a major achievement of President Obama and congressional Democrats in the wake of the crisis — and a target of Wall Street lobbying ever since. Instead, Mrs. Clinton suggested that it had been passed for “political reasons” by lawmakers panicked by their angry constituents. [...] In a January 2016 speech in New York, amid her tough primary campaign with Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Clinton vowed to defend the Dodd-Frank Act and expand financial regulation to new territory, such as hedge funds and high-frequency traders.":
 * "In a separate speech to Goldman Sachs employees the same month, Mrs. Clinton said it was an “oversimplification” to blame the global financial crisis of 2008 on the U.S. banking system.":

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk

 * A suggestion. I usually do not edit US politics and have more or less fresh eyes here. I think three first short paragraphs immediately after the title "Post-2008 election" are well sourced, but their meaning and relevance to the page is impossible to understand for a casual reader like myself. Adding what was suggested above would make this even less understandable for a casual reader. I would suggest to remove these three short paragraphs and consolidate the remaining much better text ("Decision-making process" and "Expectations") under the title "Post-2008 election". My very best wishes (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we delete all the content about the speeches? Sorry, we had an RfC which led to clear consensus for inclusion. What we may need to do however, is flesh it out with more information about the content of those speeches, as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but what consensus for inclusion are you talking about? If about that one, it did not result in anything, and it was not really about the text I am talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC is there. User:BU Rob13, can you please explain this to the editor above? They want to delete it--after we went through with the RfC and you had to put your foot down to make sure the RfC was not ignored.
 * But now we have moved on to another issue--the content of the speeches--specifically, her public and private policy positions on financial regulations. Can we please stick to discussing this?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. The consensus was to include Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs somewhere, but it is completely unclear from the text why this became an election issue. Why? My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, the admin who closed the RfC and put his foot down to stop the dithering will explain this to you. I don't have the patience. We've agreed to include it; there's no need to discuss this endlessly. You could have participated in the RfC in the first place, but one person wouldn't have made a difference. I suppose you could unclose the topic at the top of this page and re-start the conversation there if you want.
 * But for this topic here, I want to focus on the content of the speeches please.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest a slightly different approach than we have had so far. Perhaps you could find, let's say, three strong sources that discuss the content of the speech in the context of the election. Then we can take a quick straw poll to make sure we have consensus for those sources. Then we can work on some wording that summarizes those sources. How does that sound?- MrX 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I already added one from The Guardian and two from The New York Times above, all of which were published in the context of the election. Now, I don't necessarily expect us to reach consensus today (we are all busy in real life). If there is no consensus within a week, another RfC may be in order, as BU Rob13 suggests in the previous topic (before it was closed as I was asked to start a new topic for the content). I do think it would help if we could get more editors than the usual suspects on this talkpage, as shown by the last RfC, which led to consensus for inclusion, but I will let you think about it. Perhaps we will reach consensus quickly this time, as per RS. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty distilling a summary from the NYT articles, but I think it can be found in these paragraphs:
 * We could also mention that she "did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation" and that the US has officially accused Russia of hacking to influence the election.- MrX 19:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the main issue is Dodd-Frank. This topic is about her “public and a private position” on financial regulations. It's not about Russia (they've denied it, and so has Trump) or Sanders (who is already included in the article). This is tedious. I'm tired now.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two topics coming out of these speech transcripts: financial regulations and open borders. Each time there is a public and private policy position, as per RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We could create another section about Wikileaks. I guess it's become a campaign issue at this point. But I think that's off topic here. We can start another topic to discuss that. otherwise we'll get confused.Zigzig20s (talk)
 * WRT private and public policy positions, I believe you're referring to "Citing the back-room deal-making and arm-twisting used by Abraham Lincoln, she mused on the necessity of having “both a public and a private position” on politically contentious issues." You seem to be conflating that and the fact that she is running for president to mean that she has private and public positions, which is not a supported by the sources. In fact, it's a Trump campaign/Breitbart spin that has been refuted by other sources if I recall correctly. I am steadfast in my belief that if mention any Wikileaks material it has to be done in the context of the wantonly illegal actions by Russia to obtain the material. Of course Russia has denied it. It makes no difference whatsoever what Trump thinks of it.- MrX 20:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the articles I posted above. I have zero personal opinion whatsoever about HRC. The only thing I care about is policy, and The Guardian and The New York Times suggest she told the American public she was for financial regulations only to tell the opposite to Goldman Sachs. As for the origin of the leaks, we are not the mouthpiece of HRC's campaign. Of course it matters if Russia and Trump deny it, and we should mention that if we are going to bring up Russia. But I think we should simply focus on the content of the transcripts: her policy positions. Besides, come to think of it, if she wants to stop blaming it all on Russia, she is still free to release the full transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you telling me to read the article. My comments above, including direct quotes from the articles would seem to indicate that I have read the articles. I have.
 * Assuming that the Wikileaks documents are authentic, her comments to Goldman Sachs three years ago cannot reasonably be interpreted as policy statements nor are they the "opposite" of supporting financial regulation. That seems to be your original research. I decline to argue about Russia's role, and will let other editors comment about the extent to which that material should be included.- MrX 20:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The New York Times says she defends Dodd-Frank in front of the American public and dismisses it in front of Goldman Sachs. We had a long discussion about Wikileaks at Talk:Hillary Clinton and some of it would be relevant here. I think it may be easier to split our topic discussions into: 1) financial regulations 2) open borders 3) Wikileaks. Otherwise we'll get confused. I'm out for now.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The New York Times says she defends Dodd-Frank in front of the American public and dismisses it in front of Goldman Sachs. We had a long discussion about Wikileaks at Talk:Hillary Clinton and some of it would be relevant here. I think it may be easier to split our topic discussions into: 1) financial regulations 2) open borders 3) Wikileaks. Otherwise we'll get confused. I'm out for now.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I see I didn't miss anything while I was out of town for the weekend. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll take another look at some point, but I don't see any cause right now to include anything about the content of the emails, or the speeches, in the campaign article, based on the relative lack of interest by the sources, and the reporting that there was nothing particularly noteworthy to be found. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently, opposite views on financial regulations and open borders, depending on US voter v. Wall Street. Lots of RS. Who is the real HRC?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wikidemon. The key point here is that while we had a consensus (confirmed by the RfC) that the existence of Wall Street speeches became a campaign issue (largely in the primaries), the actual content of those speeches (and related emails) does not seem to be a campaign issue at all. One could argue it (the content) has led to a few awkward answers from campaign surrogates when quizzed about certain aspects, but there's nothing to suggest in reliable sources that it has become a problem for the campaign. In fact, the media has overwhelmingly focused on the Russian connection to WikiLeaks, rather than the material released. None of that seems to have any relevancy to this article. I get why Zigzig20s wants this stuff in the article, but there's a cast-iron consensus for exclusion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be the mouthpiece of the HRC campaign though. That would be POV. Who cares what they think? There is enough RS to include this. The Wikileaks controversy is a separate issue from the content of the secret speeches in my view; it should probably be included too, though in a separate section.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How are "we" being the mouthpiece of the HRC campaign? That's just a ridiculous statement to make, which nobody is going to take seriously. And "the WikiLeaks controversy" really has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. As you say, it is a separate issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure no one here is trying to correct the record. But repeating what the attractive Robby Mook wants us to say (blaming Russia instead of addressing her apparently opposite policy positions on financial regulations and open borders) would make us his mouthpiece, which Wikipedia shouldn't be. Now, the Wikileaks stuff happened in the midst of her campaign, with info regarding her campaign, so of course it's relevant to her campaign. There's enough RS for its inclusion, too. There is also the anti-Catholic stuff, which we could include.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's relevant to your interpretation of the campaign. I am wondering if we have a competence issue here. Nor do I see why you called him "the attractive Robby Mook". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not me. Please stop trying to personalize everything. This has nothing to do with me; I am a nobody. It's RS. Are you questioning The Guardian, The New York Times, etc.?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides, I see that you've commented on Wikileaks at Talk:Hillary Clinton. So you know many editors believe this is relevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Zigzig20s, please, your comments seem to have degenerate to making thinly veiled personal attacks on editors ("I'm sure no one here is trying to correct the record").Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing personal whatsoever about editing Wikipedia. Please don't over-interpret and stop trying to personalize everything. I don't have time for this. I can help a little bit with content--that's all I care about--but I am overworked this week. I'd rather you reached consensus for inclusion by yourselves frankly. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, if the proposing editor doesn't have time for this, I suggest we mark this discussion closed for lack of consensus / withdrawn. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because there are other editors bound interested in this, as per weight of RS. My Gosh. Please stop trying to close topics when you don't like them.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, it looks like it's you versus the rest of the community. All of the other editors in this thread disagree with you, making this a consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not withdrawing it. I just have business meetings to prepare in real life, which take precedence of HRC's campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of editors were interested at Talk:Hillary Clinton. Just leave it open and in the unlikely event that no other editor comments on this, it will get archived by the bot anyway. But I doubt it, given the extent of the RS. A couple of editors actively watching this talkpage don't own it; let the community argue for inclusion. Let us breathe.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't need the only objector to withdraw his/her objection to close. I suggest someone uninvolved close this counterproductive thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I suggest you let the community come together and discuss this. There's a reason why we have a bot archiving discussions after a while. We are under no obligation to respond to topics within a couple of hours. We are not on anyone's payroll; we do this as volunteers. Most of us have full-time jobs. Give the community a week at least.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you would have more luck with your POV pushing if you didn't reply to every single comment. Just a thought. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is completely NPOV, as per weight of RS. Please assume good faith. When I stopped replying, you wanted to archive it within 40 minutes. This is ridiculous. I am horrified that you're trying to close anything you don't like. We have a bot for a reason. Please let the community breathe.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no deadline. It seems to me that after Sanders' many many calls for Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches, and after the significant media coverage of the public/private dichotomy that this is a relevant encyclopedic issue for the article HRC presidential campaign. I would note that the allegations of Russian influence on Wikileaks are duly noted on the Wikileaks page (which I have edited in order to add comment from an EFF board member critical of mass email hack dumpings). It would seem to me that both sides of the issue should be presented and that this discussion should not be closed. I too am busy, but seeing the same coterie of editors pushing here as elsewhere (cf. Talk:Clinton Foundation) I can only smh that this (in addition to Volunteer Malek's violation of 1RR on the page in question are tolerated by the WMF.SashiRolls (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you for not reading the actual discussion before commenting, given that most of it is a waste of time. Quick summary: There was an RfC to include "Goldman Sachs" et al, language was worked out, consensus was agreed and it was added to the article. This section is about Zigzig20s' obsession with also including the content of the transcripts, for which a strong consensus for exclusion exists because it isn't really relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We are allowed to have a discussion about the content here, whether you like it or not. User:SashiRolls agrees that "the public/private dichotomy [...] is a relevant encyclopedic issue", so your so-called consensus is over. Don't close this. Let us breathe. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And I have zero "obsession" whatsoever. Once again, there is nothing personal about this at all. I only care about relaying content from reliable third-party sources. But this is beside the point. Editors want to discuss this. Let it go and let us breathe. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not the one who called for this section to be closed or archived. I just think you are wrong about it. I have no problem with letting this discussion mature, as long as you give other editors a chance to have their say and stop replying to every single comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I wanted to do, since I am overworked in real life this week anyway, until y'all threatened to close this topic within 40 minutes.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * SashiRolls, what are you going on about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * this SashiRolls (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. You've pretty much guaranteed nobody will take you seriously by doing that. Need me to call a whambulance? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon closed this discussion, but I don't think it is an appropriate closure, so I have unclosed it.
 * It's not appropriate because there is an active discussion going on. The discussion was only 44 hours old, garnering pages and pages of debate from eight editors, the last contribution just 4 hours before the closing.  There is plenty of evidence at least one editor has more to say.  And maybe there are others who care and haven't had a chance to comment yet.  44 hours is pretty short for some busy people.
 * The closing statement said, "Closing after no consensus found, without prejudice to any future content proposal on the topic; proposing editor is declining to pursue proposal for now", but that's not a reason to close; A reason to close would be consensus has been reached. Or the topic is dead so new commenters should be warned not to waste their time.  If the proposing editor is declining to pursue the proposal for now, and no one else wants to, the discussion will just pause or stop on its own; no closure is needed.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could somebody please re-close, and can everybody please try to avoid any WP:POINTy process games? Giraffedata and everyone else, if you have a content proposal to make on the subject would you kindly do so in a new section that explains the proposed content change and avoids the above infighting, sniping, and so on? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Before doing so, please review WP:Closing discussions and you will probably reach the conclusion that it is not acceptable to tag this discussion as closed. Closing is a form of weak arbitration where someone, necessarily objective and uninvolved, reviews the discussion and declares that a consensus has been reached and the discussion has served its purpose.  We don't have a mechanism on Wikipedia for just closing down a discussion because it is stupid or pointless; on the contrary, we never stifle discussion.  People who are bored by this thread can just ignore it.  If there aren't at least two people who want to discuss, the discussion will just stop on its own.  If someone is "discussing" something to the point of being disruptive, the proper procedure is to get a ban of that editor.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that is not even close to how it works. If you'd like to entertain a meta-discussion of how to deal with talk page disruption there's probably a better place to do it than here, and a better way than jumping into a disruptive discussion to make a WP:POINT. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised to find only a passing mention of her Goldman Sachs speeches in the article. It was a focal issue in the primary campaign which regained prominence upon their release. I've excerpted coverage of just one of her comments from that speech (on Dodd-Frank) from top RS.

-NPR

-NY TImes

-CNN

-Observer

-Boston Globe

Are editors honestly suggesting this is non-notable, especially relative to statements like "She criticized Bernie Sanders for calling the Human Rights Campaign 'part of the establishment'" which the article includes? For a politician who hasn't suffered from lack of criticism I have a hard time finding any of it in our article. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It does seem unimportant and without much general interest from mainstream sources or the population as a whole. You have it backwards. If you wish to propose that there is some content to include in the article, would you kindly propose some content and to save a cycle perhaps explain why you consider it justified? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I presented coverage in top RS and your response is "it seems unimportant" ? Well, good on you for having an opinion! I'm not proposing an addition though I believe Zigzig20s was. You're suggesting the discussion should be closed, I'm suggesting it should not be. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Not an opinion, a summary take on the sources so far proposed after a number of months watching this unfold. Other editors and I are not inclined to repeat the entire discussion from the starting point every time the same editor makes yet another proposal to include the exact same content. So you're jumping in to thwart other editors as a process game rather than to make a good faith proposal for improving the article? Swell. Welcome to the talk page. Again, I ask others to close yet another train wreck here, and if anybody wants to actually help improve the encyclopedia, please go ahead and propose some content. - Wikidemon (talk)
 * It's new content. The content of the speeches is new. HRC hid it for over a year despite repeated requests from her opponents and the public at large; we have excerpts now, and as User:James J. Lambden suggests, enough RS to include this. We had to go through the palaver of an RfC to include the mere fact of the speeches in the article, and the overwhelming majority of the community (not the editors on this talkpage) was for inclusion. Do we need to start another RfC to reach consensus for inclusion of the content of the speeches too? Perhaps. What we learned from the previous RfC is that the editors on this talkpage do not necessarily reflect the overwhelming majority of the community. Now, as User:Giraffedata suggests, "It's not appropriate [to close this topic] because there is an active discussion going on." and "no closure is needed." If you don't like this topic, nobody is forcing you to keep looking at it. You can "close" it in your head by looking at other pages. But please respect us. We want to discuss the inclusion of content as per weight of RS here, and there is no deadline. Let us breathe. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there is no active content discussion going on. Or were you lying, or just flopping, when you said you were not going to pursue this discussion because you had better things to do? This is becoming pathological. Please, either make a meaningful content proposal for this article or get off the pot. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't insult me ("lying", "pathological"). Totally unacceptable. The meaningful content proposal started at the very top of this thread with direct quotes about financial regulations from RS; User:James J. Lambden suggested some more; there is no need whatsoever for you to micromanage this. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Let us breathe and work on this as a community.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your initial proposal was thoroughly rejected yet again as "egregious", "innuendo", and a "hideous misrepresentation", so after bashing the community for a while you said you were withdrawing. Were you telling the truth or not when you said you were going away to deal with work? You keep saying that. This has become a pattern. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I spent some time reading what RS tell about the meaning of leaked emails like this. Here is the problem: this is all too open to different interpretations, mostly about her personal character, and does not include anything outright illegal. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

* Suggestion - This is aimed at Zigzig20s, James J. Lambden et al. Rather than just list quotes from sources and argue about whether or not they can be culled for material, how about making an actual content proposal for us to consider? Submit some actual text with the appropriate references and then try to win a consensus for it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest we add a direct quote from The New York Times to avoid Wikidrama, perhaps just, "According to The New York Times, excerpts from her Goldman Sachs speeches showed that, "Mrs. Clinton did not defend the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation, a major achievement of President Obama and congressional Democrats in the wake of the crisis — and a target of Wall Street lobbying ever since. Instead, Mrs. Clinton suggested that it had been passed for “political reasons” by lawmakers panicked by their angry constituents.". User:James J. Lambden: What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can sort of see where you are coming from with this, but has it received significant coverage? Apart from the NYT article, I am having a hard time finding anything; therefore, I must conclude it isn't noteworthy enough for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's received a lot of media, as User:James J. Lambden pointed out earlier.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The phrasing above is acceptable. I think a paraphrase would be better unless that prompts objections. "political reasons" should stay in quotes. I'm somewhat baffled by the no-significant-coverage claim – see my excerpts above which I pared down from a long list of RS. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I cannot support this unnecessary addition that adds nothing to the article. BTW, there is duplicative sourcing in that list ("strikingly..."). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, we've heard you, but we disagree with you as per RS and you don't own this article. Do we need to start an RfC?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree with inserting the proposed direct quote of the NYT piece. It sounds informative and fair. — JFG talk 17:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ with a brief mention in the prose: In October 2016, leaked excerpts from a Goldman Sachs Q&A session cast doubts about her support for the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight legislation., citing the NYT quote for reference. — JFG talk 23:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Podesta emails
I think this should be included in the "see also" section. Clearly this was a campaign issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably more relevant for the Hillary email article, not this article, because Podesta's emails are not relevant to her campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. This happened during her campaign and it was a major campaign issue, as it included her public/private views on Wall Street regulations, Catholics, the debate questions shared by Donna Brazile, etc...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * His emails were not a major campaign issue. None of what you listed was a major campaign issue. How many hours to go until this is over? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as per weight of RS. There's no countdown or deadline; this is an encyclopedic article and we must do our best to include all relevant information about the major campaign issues.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But this wasn't relevant to the campaign, and no post-election analysis will change that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it was, as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a proper use of a "see also"link. If it's relevant and of due weight, then the issue should be mentioned somewhere in the article, and the wikilink would appear there. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it a proper use of "see also" link?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Something caused Clinton's support to weaken before the election. Prime suspects are disclosure of continued FBI investigation of her emails and the flood of emails from Democratic operatives published on Wikileaks. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Some post-mortem analysis indicates that her support was already weak, but was not noticed because the polling was grossly inaccurate. TweedVest (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It was more likely a problem in estimating likely voters in different demographic groups, and overestimation of Clinton's support among minorities. TFD (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The media is flogging themselves over failing to report the forest of Trump signs in flyover country. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Where I live, in a fairly rural area, Trump signs and bumper stickers were all over the place. I don't know how they run these polls nowdays, but if they are still doing it in person, that means they're probably only polling in cities. I guess that's why the results of the actual election were so unexpected. (I voted for Trump anyway... 😉) I'd support putting the email stuff in the see also, because it was relevant to this election and Clinton's campaign.  White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Not having a single mention of Wikileaks or the Podesta Emails is inexcusable. It should be noted that this page and other pages related to Hillary Clinton are infested with far-left activist editors, anxious to scrub any hint of scandal from her articles. Any volunteers to begin adding this material? Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this a Wikipedia talk page or a forum? These edits are way out of line. Objective3000 (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation
User:Scjessey There is an entire page devoted solely to this particular scandal. To not include this tremendous news event and ongoing FBI investigation to this page does a tremendous disservice to the community, and violates WP:DUE. Would anyone care to make their case as to why this scandal should not be included on this page, before the addition is restored? So far, the only argument that has been made is "LOL good one." All reasonable opinions are welcomed. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there's an entire POV fork devoted to something that isn't a scandal at all. This has already been discussed, and the relevant stuff is already in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Scjessey You are of course more than welcome to dismiss the Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy as nothing more than a POV fork, but I must respectfully (and vehemently) disagree. There is an ongoing public corruption criminal FBI investigation into the Clinton foundation for various crimes such as bribery, pay to play, and other misappropriation of charity funds. To not include such a major scandal and possible burden on Hillary's poll numbers is an inexcusable omission and reeks of WP:POV. I also believe the aforementioned article to be woefully incomplete, but one page at a time! Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just like with Hillary Clinton herself, there is no evidence of any legal wrongdoing that has come to light, yet your characterization of "scandal" and the use of words like "crimes" clearly indicates you've already made your determination. Like I said before, editors have already discussed this at length, and the relevant stuff is already in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey I won't try Hillary Clinton for any crimes on this page, but again, you are welcome to believe that Hillary is a law-abiding citizen. "Scandal" is not my characterization, rather that of every reputable news outlet. That includes Newsweek and the LA Times, both unapologetic, avowed liberal sources who staunchly supported Hillary throughout her campaign. There is one single passing mention of the foundation in the article, which says nothing of Haiti, Chelsea's wedding, "Bill Clinton, Inc.", Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, pay for play, bribery, etc. or any other key topics associated with the scandal. So no, all the "relevant stuff" is not already in the article. In fact, none of the "relevant stuff" is in the article. None. And not a single mention of WikiLeaks, which helped bring her campaign down and helped launch the FBI criminal investigation into the Foundation. Where is this discussion you speak of? It's certainly not on this talk page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not a scandal or a "tremendous news event". It's probably not a controversy. It certainly isn't real. "Ongoing FBI investigations", whatever that means, do not automatically qualify as encyclopedic content. It's just one of a number of dubious claims that were promoted as campaign issues. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a tremendous news event? The scandal was covered incessantly on all networks and in newspapers nationwide. It's not "real"? Well, Newsweek, the LA Times, and every other reputable news outlet strongly disagrees with that assertion. It may be dubious to you, but it certainly isn't to the FBI. They take public corruption very seriously, even if you do not. So yes, an issue that a presidential candidate was constantly forced to defend in the debates and her rare press conferences most definitely warrants a mention in the article concerning that candidate's campaign. Especially if her opponent's page contains an entire paragraph devoted to each voting demographic's support (or lack thereof) of that candidate. I know Wikipedia is headquartered in San Francisco, but that is no excuse to intensely avoid WP:POV on every political article. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And with that last sentence, you've automatically ruled yourself of being taken seriously. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, and I am regretful that I am not being taken seriously by an individual who reverts edits and scrubs history, offering only "LOL good one" for an explanation. However, the fact remains that FBI investigations are very real, and considering we've never had a major party nominee embattled with one (much less two!) FBI criminal investigations during her campaign, this milestone most definitely qualifies as "tremendous." I'm going to do my best not to violate WP:AGF here, and assume you know something I do not. Regardless, a neutrality discussion needs to be opened on this page. If any page deserved the tag, it's this one. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this editor is not talking seriously about improving the article, more like airing some personal opinions. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hidden Tempo, you really need to stop citing this conspiracy theory of yours, where you try to support your claims of biased editing and a liberal POV by pointing out that "Wikipedia is headquartered in San Francisco". What is headquartered in San Francisco is the Wikimedia Foundation - the umbrella organization that keeps the lights on and the rent paid for the multiple wikis that operate under its aegis, one of which is this English Wikipedia. The staff at the Wikimedia Foundation does the technical and financial maintenance of these various wiki projects. The Wikimedia Foundation staff has nothing to do with content, here or at any of the other wikis. Content at each wiki is created and maintained by volunteer editors from all over the world. Many of the editors you accuse of POV are not even American. They are simply volunteers concerned to keep Wikipedia accurate, neutral, and civil. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * and, whether or not I can prove that Wikipedia has bought into the Silicon Valley Facebook/Microsoft/Google/Apple, etc. long and storied tradition of devout liberalism is beside the point. I am willing to let that fall by the wayside. My main beef is the undeniable bleached (no pun intended) and clean-as-a-whistle nature of Hillary's campaign article when compared to Trump's. Every minutiae is accounted for on the Trump page - every remark by Trump, criticism of Trump, every scrap of a possible Trump indiscretion, and any mere appearance of impropriety of Trump throughout his campaign is documented with at least a sentence, and in most cases an entire section and several paragraphs. Hillary was plagued from the DNC convention until Election Day by WikiLeaks emails (resulting in the dismissal of the DNC chair, as well as numerous operatives and staffers). She was (and remains) subject to an FBI criminal investigation for her part in several inappropriate uses of Clinton Foundation funds, bribery, and pay for play backroom deals. Not one word on this article. Nothing about the Clinton Foundation/FBI investigation, and nothing about the WikiLeaks. No mention of "open trade and open borders," using advance debate questions furnished by CNN to cheat at a Town Hall debate, "the Supreme Court got it wrong on the second amendment," "HRC is easily confused," etc. etc. etc. Also, not one word about her 9/11 collapse into a van caught on video, which she declared was the result of pneumonia, which she originally claimed was the result of overheating, and before that blamed on "allergies to Trump." Just a note that "By the way, she had pneumonia in September but her personal doctor says she's doing just great." Nothing about accusing the families of the Benghazi victims of lying, and then later excusing her remarks as "short-circuiting" during the interview. In contrast, Trump has two(!) sections discussing the Khan family gaffe in meticulous detail, well-sourced and thoroughly researched. I honestly cannot think of any other reason why none of these issues are mentioned in this article, other than a conscious and deliberate effort to avoid neutrality. If anyone is able to make a well-reasoned, supported argument as to why these very heavily covered stories (which all likely contributed in no small part to her defeat) should be totally scrubbed from this article, I am eager and profoundly interested in hearing it. And I do resent being accused of "not talking seriously about improving the article." I would kindly ask that anyone flinging that accusation in my direction to please refer to WP:AGF. Thank you to you both.Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and may be wrong with the Donald Trump articles, it is true that Clinton's campaign was relatively devoid of flare-ups as compared to Trump's. Our aim is not to portray two particular politicians as equivalent, but to get to the gist of the subject matter by reference to reliable sources. If anything, the sources did lean towards a lot of of meaningless trivia in the case of Clinton in their own effort to balance their coverage, at least until Trump's behavior jumped the rail. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm tired of this false equivalence issue. What does or doesn't happen at Trump articles shouldn’t have any bearing on what happens at Clinton articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not there are false equivalency issues is irrelevant. I requested a well-reasoned and supported argument that justifies a complete and total scrubbing of a scandal that dominated headlines for months, resulted in a crippling of Hillary's poll numbers, the resignation of numerous DNC operatives and staffers via WikiLeaks (also entirely omitted from this article, with no explanation), dealt a massive blow to her already feeble trustworthiness numbers, and perhaps most notably - stoked the fires of an ongoing criminal FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation. What is easily the most bizarre feature of washing away this scandal or "controversy" from her campaign page, is that this article repeatedly refers back to to the Hillary campaign 2016 article, and yet, is not included in the "Controversies" section. Completely inexplicable and not at all compliant with WP:DUE. Can you explain that, or ? Because I've really tried and have had absolutely no luck at all. And let's please try to keep our own personal politics out of it, as some of the POV I've seen here by viciously (and at times, defamatory) attacking a presidential candidate and his supporters is downright disgusting and has no place on this page.Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Said the editor who tried to suggest Wikipedia was biased because it was based in San Francisco. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not going to get into petty ad hominem garbage on this page, . Let's all just do our best to maintain WP:NPOV, update articles regardless of who we supported for president or our views on those who supported a particular candidate, and get these WikiLeaks and Clinton Foundation discoveries on this campaign page pronto. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You think a passive aggressive comment like that is going to win you support? We already do our best to maintain neutrality, regardless of which candidate we favored for the election. I know you weren't an editor here until recently, but you must understand we have had extensive, exhaustive discussion about all these issues you have raised. The article reflects what the community decided in various consensus-building discussions over the last few weeks and months. Go back and read the archive, and you will see our discussions about things like WikiLeaks (which is more a story about Russian involvement in the election than the impact it had on this campaign) and the Clinton Foundation (which has almost nothing to do with this campaign). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Do I think advocating for neutrality will win me support with those who tried to put Hillary into power earlier this month? Likely not. And I don't doubt that the editors of this page truly believe that they do their best to maintain neutrality, but I, and others, strongly disagree with that assertion. I did peruse some of the RfC archives, and found no compelling argument to omit two mountainous scandals (Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy and the Podesta emails) from this page. HRC feverishly resisted releasing the transcripts from her Goldman Sachs speeches, and WikiLeaks showed the American people her reasoning behind this. No mention in the article. However, Trump's leaked Access Hollywood tape has no less than two paragraphs in his campaign's article. I'm not sure anyone has raised this obvious conflict with WP:Consistency, as these articles cover a very similar topic but have an entirely different tone and standard of WP:DUE. In the final months, there was a daily new WikiLeaks release of the Podesta emails, and all were reported by multiple reliable sources. And yet, this highly unusual aspect of a presidential campaign is treated to zero mentions? It just does not make sense to not include such a major, ongoing, widely reported election issue, and this alone warrants the neutrality tag for this article. Regarding the Clinton Foundation having "almost nothing" to do with the campaign, I could provide a few dozen reliable sources that contradict that statement. If you'd like to participate in a new post-election RfC, we could get into more detail there. Plus, we probably got off on the wrong foot - it would be great to take a fresh look at these issues and have a civil, well-reasoned exchange of ideas, now that the next POTUS has been chosen and emotions have begun to settle! It's not a "make one's preferred candidate look better/culpable" issue rather a "how to improve this article" issue. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's clear from the way you have written that wall of text that you are unable to separate your political views from the business of maintaining the project. Language like "mountainous scandals" betrays you, I'm afraid. There's been no evidence of "scandal", or wrongdoing of any kind. You aren't actually advocating for neutrality if you are trying to raise the profiles of individual issues by conflating them and labeling them as scandals. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion, but please review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. My personal political views are irrelevant to the pursuit of neutrality on this article. Fox News, Politico, The Atlantic, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and many others do characterize the alleged bribery/pay for play/fraud, etc. at the Clinton Foundation as a "scandal." The Federal Bureau of Investigation obviously disagrees very strongly with your statement that there is "no evidence" of a scandal, as do most media outlets. So I have to wonder which reliable sources you have to support your argument that this is not a scandal. Even more concerning is the use of "controversy" in regards to the email scandal, despite the fact that there is virtually no reliable source out there that does not refer to the scandal as a scandal. In fact, many politicians and pundits consider the email scandal to be the biggest scandal since the Watergate scandal. And yet, Wikipedia inexplicably continues to use the word "controversy." Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a biographical online encyclopedia. Scandal is opinion reporting, controversy is not so bad. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the inclusion of Clinton Foundation controversy in this article. I am surprised that it's not already in here, as it is very much relevant to Clinton's campaign and has significant notability.--IntelligentName (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed @. Since it appears that there is a good amount of support to create a new section devoted to the controversy/scandal, do we even need a RfC? Alternatively we could draft a preliminary version and work off of that if that would be a better option? Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No evidence of wrong-doing has been shown. These days, columnists and some sources attach the word scandal far too carelessly. An encyclopedia should be more careful. Objective3000 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the wording gets tricky here. She has not yet been charged with any crimes related to the Foundation, but remember - she was not charged with any crimes related to Whitewater either, but that page does include the phrase "scandal" in the a.k.a.'s. I'm fine with adding a "controversy" section, and then revising the title to "scandal" should the FBI investigation result in a conviction for Hillary. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hidden Tempo, when you say a "good amount of support", you mean one other editor. In fact, the reverse is true. While I'm sure many editors may be open to discussing an expansion of some of these issues on this talk page, I would think it extremely unlikely that you would find any support for a "scandal/controversy" section among the regular editors of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm actually referring to at least half a dozen editors on this page alone, and several others in archived discussions. Not to mention countless reliable media outlets and blogs. I know you think that I'm a big POV guy trying to make Hillary look bad (or something) on Wikipedia, but the election's over. There's no reason to try to hurt Hillary - the FBI is looking into her situation and I doubt they're using her Wikipedia page as a guideline. But, can you honestly claim that the Clinton Foundation "controversy" didn't play a huge role in her campaign? The leaked emails of Hillary talking about how she wants "open trade and open borders" and the constant release of emails from John Podesta's account discussing campaign strategy (many of which contained highly controversial material) was not a "major issue" in her campaign? The Podesta emails was not a "major issue" in the campaign? Using debate questions in advance, courtesy of Donna Brazile? No biggie, there? Honestly, I'm astonished that there's even a debate of whether or not to discuss the Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy or the Podesta emails in an article devoted to Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential campaign. Now that the election is over, I think it's definitely a fantastic idea to revisit these issues in a formal RfC, as it appears this issue isn't likely to be resolved any time soon. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The Clinton Foundation is seen as one of the reasons Clinton lost. See for example Jonathan Alter:  "Clinton ended up as the Velcro candidate—everything stuck. Her paid speeches to Wall Street, Clinton Foundation complications, and WikiLeaks staff indiscretions...."  Now that the election is over and nothing we do can now change the result, let's ensure that the article reflects the information generally presented about her campaign in mainstream sources.  It may be that the Foundation was deeply misunderstood, but it was the perception (not necessarily the reality) that was discussed in the campaign and helped sink it.  TFD (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well said. Whether or not one believes that the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund, to completely scrub any mention of it or the ongoing criminal FBI investigation from the 2016 Hillary campaign article is indefensible and poses a major WP:POV problem. Even if Hillary is completely innocent of any fraud/bribery/pay for play or any of the other corruption issues at play here, she was forced to defend the Foundation throughout the campaign and it absolutely played an enormous role in the choice of many voters. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What criminal investigation? What bribery? What pay for play? Unfounded accusations like this should not exist anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Objective3000 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to argue for Hillary's innocence,, and I'm confused as to why you continue to advocate for censoring the talk pages. The facts (not an opinion) are that Hillary and Bill are accused of accepting bribes from foreign governments in exchange for special policy favors, and there is an ongoing public corruption FBI investigation into these allegations. She is also accused of abusing her position as Secretary of State to sell high level positions in exchange for money. This is well-documented in multiple RS, so while you may decry the allegations as "unfounded," the media sees fit to cover them thoroughly and the FBI sees fit to investigate them thoroughly. And yes, if the Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy enjoys its own separate and lengthy article, certainly it warrants more than a passing mention on this article. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It ain't the place for you to keep on WP:SOAPBOXin' endlessly either. Really, drop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again, . Yes, as I've explained to you (several times now), trying to achieve neutrality on an article is not a soapbox issue. In addition, you have no authority, moral or otherwise, to demand that people "drop" discussions relating to the neutrality of articles. I noticed back in September (the day that Hillary was filmed collapsing into a van in Manhattan, as it happens) you tried to make a joke about how it was underestimation to say that "only half" of those who didn't support Hillary were "deplorable." If you can't separate your support of Hillary Clinton from the improvement of this article, it might be best if you refer to WP:COI and recuse yourself from these discussions. That's just my suggestion, though. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not "trying to achieve neutrality on an article" (quite the opposite in fact). You are using the talk page of an article to rant and pontificate about your own personal political views. And you're doing it to an extent which is becoming disruptive. You also have no idea what "COI" actually means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but I have not voiced a single one of my political views to date. Regardless, due to your repeated egregious violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, I'm going to have to respectfully ask that you cease responding to my edits. You may participate in the forthcoming RfC regarding the Clinton Foundation and WikiLeaks, but the personal interaction/back and forth is going to have to stop. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, this is a "discussion page". We are "discussing" things. I am going to respond to you whether you like it or not. And I have been perfectly civil, although critical of what you are doing here on the talk page. Soapboxing and being disruptive. You have like four or five political rants right here in this very section, so yes, you have indeed expressed your political views, more than most of us care to read. Oh and gee, thanks for the permission to participate in an RfC discussion, I was worried about that one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I have not voiced any of my political views. I have pointed to RS involving politics. Surely you are intelligent enough to grasp this nuance. Contrast that with your record of bashing those who did not support Hillary, and maliciously deleting paragraphs of material that you think reflects poorly on Democrats (Donna Brazile, for instance). You're what is known as an "activist editor," who chooses to push the DNC agenda and do Hillary's dirty work, rather that contribute to the project in a constructive manner. For that reason, along with your complete inability to carry on a civil discussion, I am warning you a second time to stop pursuing me to different articles in order to attempt to inflict your viewpoints upon me. Either comply, or we could just go ahead and escalate this and take care of it that way. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Hidden Tempo, I can tell you feel passionately about this, but those were not the controversies that dogged her campaign. The thing that was constantly being raised against her, the thing that was asked about at debates, the thing Sanders was "tired of hearing about," the thing that caused Trump crowds to chant "lock her up" - was her State Department use of private emails. If you asked a Trump supporter what criminal acts she had committed, they would always reply "Well, that email thing". And "that email thing" is well covered in the existing article. These other issues - Clinton Foundation, Podesta, etc. - were minor in comparison. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but just a correction - this isn't an issue of "passion" (emotion, implying POV). This is an issue of maintaining neutrality. Was the email scandal her number 1 issue? No question. Number 2? I'd say it's tough not to put WikiLeaks in that slot, with the Clinton Foundation corruption charges and Benghazi tying for a close third. Most Trump supporters I know never stop at "that email thing." They may start the list with the emails, but then there's the Foundation, Whitewater, constantly changing her positions, the secrecy, Kathy Shelton, being tipped off by the DOJ about the Benghazi hearings as well as the incoming email investigation, and on and on. Anyway, just the very fact that the inclusion of these issues in the article continues to be debated only lends further credence to the benefits of opening a new RfC. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * RE: the very fact that the inclusion of these issues in the article continues to be debated LOL! It continues to be debated only because YOU keep flogging it. You, alone, do not constitute a reason to open an RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. RE: this isn't an issue of "passion" (emotion, implying POV). The record shows that to date you have made 26 edits to this talk page, ALL of them pushing to include these additional issues in the article. That looks rather like passion to me. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * True, if I was the only one who feel this article is woefully incomplete and WP:POV, I would agree with you on your last sentiment. But of course, it's not., , and (along with myself) all have recently voiced disagreement with your insistence that the Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy and Podesta emails deserve absolutely no mention on this article. Your opinion is backed primarily by Scjessey, Objective3000, and Volunteer Marek. So we have a four vs. four conflict, here. At least two of those editors openly professed their support of Hillary Clinton and detest for Donald Trump during the election, which poses a very real problem. Conflicts aside, I would welcome all views in the new RfC. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In reference to the "passion" issue, you are welcome to believe whatever you wish. I'm not a POV guy. I'm not advocating including reports that Hillary and Obama smell like sulfur. I am repeatedly stressing (26 times, by your count) the importance of maintaining neutrality on Wikipedia with what I thought was a no-brainer: that the Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy deserves more than a passing mention, as do the Podesta emails, due to the crippling effect on her campaign, as well as the media frenzy that ensued from the revelations and the immense complexity, implications, and FBI involvement stemming from the revelations. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting this crap? What "crippling effect on her campaign" are you talking about? If you would just step out of the right wing media echo chamber for a few moments, you would see that you are completely wrong about everything. The Podesta emails did NOTHING to the campaign. Not a damn thing. The Clinton Foundation did NOTHING either. There's simply no evidence to back up what you are saying. She WON the vote by nearly two million people. Trump only gained an advantage in the Electoral College because Clinton lost (a) millennials to third party voters, and (b) voters without a college degree to Trump. Bernie being a petulant, power-crazy candidate who fanned the flames of hate against Clinton and depressed her vote is responsible for (a), and EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS BENGHAZI! EMAILS EMAILS is responsible for (b) . -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoa, why are you so angry? Why are you screaming about "right wing media" in what is supposed to be a neutrality discussion on a Wikipedia talk page? If you would like, I could show you dips in her poll numbers as they coincide with the most damning WikiLeaks releases. The numbers, as we all probably know, never lie. I appreciate your opposing view, but to say that you have more information than the FBI who launched the investigation into the Foundation is just...well, it doesn't really hold up when we do minimal research. As far as your analysis of Hillary's loss goes, I'm not interested in the slightest in delving into that can of worms. However, I will note that whites (with and without college degrees) overwhelmingly broke for Trump. Traditionally, minorities (with and without degrees) vote for the Democrats, so there were no surprises this time around either. But I digress. Let's bring it back to the topic at hand: the Podesta emails and the Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy, and the alarming absence of these topics from this article. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not "screaming" or "angry" at all. Where did you get that idea? I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong about what is or is not important to the campaign article, and repeatedly linking to those POV forks isn't going to change that, despite your insistence that their absence is "alarming" LOL. Your claim about polling coinciding with WikiLeaks releases is absolutely absurd, because (a) they don't coincide, and (b) the polling was spectacularly wrong. Incidentally, what you call my "opposing view" is, in fact, the prevailing view. So, time to back away from the dead horse and move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

, please drop the WP:STICK. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I got the idea from your generous use of all caps, attacking those with whom you disagree as being in a "right wing echo chamber," and numerous non-sequiturs contained in your edit. Not to mention your continued struggle with WP:BEAR and WP:APR. If you are not angry, then I stand corrected. Anyway, the mere fact that you feel the need to state again and again that there is nothing funny going on with the Clinton Foundation and nothing of value was learned from the Podesta Emails, even including the revelation that Hillary holds a "public position and a private position"(!), proves that you have an opinion and are vigorously fighting to defend it. Therefore, you or I cannot be "completely wrong" about this topic, by definition of "opinion." If we were talking about facts, I would simply provide a link to a picture of Hillary in handcuffs, or you would provide a link resolving Hillary of all wrongdoing. Frantically trying to make the case that someone is "wrong" is not conducive to this project at all. I don't mind or care that you unapologetically defended Hillary during her campaign, but I do mind if one's political beliefs are standing in the way of neutrality. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless you are incredibly naïve, Hidden Tempo, surely you must know that every politician that has ever existed has a public position and a private position? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not here to argue whether or not the candidate you tried to put into power is a filthy liar, @. This talk page is about improvement of the article and bringing it to neutrality. If you can't stay on the topic, I would highly recommend you cease editing this page. If you would like your opinions to be heard regarding Hillary and politics in general, you may be more welcome on the NPR forums or perhaps Slate. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Gladly. Shall we begin the RfC now and get this matter resolved? Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not at all what I meant, and I think you know that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm exhausted by this discussion, but I am troubled by the absence of these two major issues being inexplicably excluded from the article. This is emphasized when you look at the tome that is Donald Trump's campaign page, and see that every breath of criticism of Trump and mere hint of negative press surrounding the President-elect is extensively documented. Honestly, I would begin the RfC myself, but I have never done so and don't really feel comfortable adding the template. I'm fine with you or anyone else taking the reigns on this one. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So we're done here? An RfC would be disruptive, we've had too many of those as it is. If anyone has any specific content proposals we should consider them in ordinary course of article maintenance. Over ttime the article will evolve. We don't have the perspective right now to be doing a post mortem on the election. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why hasn't Hidden Tempo been T-banned? Among other things, he has accused long time editors of being paid by the DNC without an iota of evidence, simply because they don't agree with his extremist POV. Objective3000 (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm done with this section . I do think ruling out an RfC is counterproductive and unfair to those who would like to read a neutral article, but it's obvious emotions are still running very high and it may be beneficial to wait until after the inauguration and improving both campaign articles. As far as the personal attacks and fabricated accusations leveled against me ("extremist POV"???) go, I think that we've had about enough bear poking in this past week to last us a lifetime! Let's not go down that road, . We may have different definitions of "neutrality," but that's no reason to go around crying for a ban of other contributors. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That would make you a bear, which isn't the worst insult in the world :) Anyway, you're right. In another week it will probably be a little easier for people to agree. After the inauguration easier yet… a year from now, perhaps few people will have a strong opinion anymore, though fewer people will be trying to improve the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * a year from now, perhaps few people will have a strong opinion anymore - you hope.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Can we please close this stunningly unproductive thread? It seems fairly obvious that there is no consensus for inclusion, and half the discussion is about editors, and not about edits. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe instead of this dead-end talk about the Clinton Foundation, we should move the discussion to the Trump article - since the Trump Foundation admitted in its most recent filing that it has broken the rules against self-dealing, both this immediate past year and in previous years. That sounds a little bit worth mentioning, don't you think? --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Laughable POV filth, . You know better than that. Surely you weren't serious with that suggestion? Even an unskilled researcher would be able to see that the only sources of this allegation are progressive left-wing media outlets, all the usual suspects: Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post, PBS, CBS, DailyKos, etc. We should probably wait for the facts to come out on this one before citing the opinions of Democratic activist "journalists" and bloggers. The Clinton Foundation scandal, on the other hand, is very real and that is why the FBI continues to investigate (after a year) several felonies that have been alleged. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"Worst loss since 1988"?
This was just added to the article's "Results" section:
 * The electoral college result was the worst result for the Democratic Party since Michael Dukakis' loss to George H. W. Bush in 1988.

I submit that this is a worthless, meaningless statistic. It sounds like something historic, but in fact it isn't at all. In that time period (1992-2012) there were six presidential elections. The Democrats won four of them and lost only two. So really, all this is saying is, "this was a worse loss for the Dems than 2000 or 2004 was". Hyped as if it meant something, when in fact it means nothing at all.

This "statistic" was mentioned in passing in one source. I think it should be removed as a) misleading and b) trivial. On the other hand, maybe we should put in something about the historic nature of her lead in the popular vote. It's now up to 1.7 million votes, breaking records in several ways which we can detail if you like. How about: she is getting the third largest popular vote ever cast, exceeded only by Obama's two elections? --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that too and my radar went off. I tried to tone it down and keep the gist.Timtempleton (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I like @'s version. In regards to 's suggestion, the Democratic party is in shambles. We just witnessed a complete rejection of what the DNC was offering, as the Republicans dominate the House, hold a majority in the Senate, and now hold a sizable majority of the governorships and state legislature. This was a historical election that many have referred to as a "landslide" victory, and absolutely belongs in this article. It easily passes the WP:10YT. The popular vote tally is more of a novelty than anything else, as it doesn't affect the outcome of the election even she reached a 5 million vote surplus. It's more of a "consolation prize" for Hillary supporters that doesn't really make anyone feel that much better, least of all, Hillary herself. Trump strategically campaigned vigorously in swing states and used analytics to make the best use of his ad buys, while Hillary chose to pad her lead in California and New York. So no, I don't think the fact that a Democratic candidate won wide support of Californians and New Yorkers is worthy of drawing special attention to. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I had tried to keep as true to the source as possible in my original edit, however @'s edit does seem to maintain the significance of the electoral college vote margin while striking a more balanced tone.ThaiWanIII (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * HiddenTempo, one more time, please spare us your political commentary and stick to discussing the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I warned you twice, buddy. You couldn't control yourself, though. You had to put in your two cents and once again adopt your "holier than thou" attitude and attempt to fabricate political views that were never given. Reported for repeated incidents of harassment, after being instructed multiple times to keep your garbage away from me. You would be wise not to reply, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Zip it, HT. Seriously, zip it. Do I need to spell this out? I have removed the entire statement as pointless and trivial. The "worst loss" (or "greatest win") — among three, count them, three wins by Republican candidates following Dukakis — is a silly, pointless, meaningless factoid. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Refer to WP:OWN, . Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. I decided not to revert your edit after long deliberation, not because I don't believe the devastating loss for the Democrats wasn't significant, but because I think it should be discussed on the Talk Page. Telling all those who dissent with your viewpoint to "zip it"? Disgusting, and you need to apologize. This kind of behavior is not at all conducive to improving this article. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You too. Zip it. And stop templating the regulars with "please refer to" nonsense and ridiculous demands for apologies. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. You must be in college. College is a really cool time. All sorts of new ideas coming your way, maybe even formulating some ideas of your own, finding out who you are, having a variety of new and exciting experiences...I really miss it sometimes, actually. Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked with my nostalgia, here. Let me clarify. You don't have to apologize to me. However, whether or not you apologize speaks volumes to your character, and says quite a bit about you one way or the other. But you must realize, there is no leeway here with WP:OWN. You are allowed to make your case about the magnitude of the Hillary loss, but what you absolutely are not permitted to do is to tell other contributors that their views are not valid and to "zip it," "shut up," "stop it," or any other demands of censorship. This is meant to be a discussion, and fascism has no place. I don't care what your professors said is acceptable and what's not. And my view is that your revert was wrong, and was in the right. I think it was a great edit. That's my opinion, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it - except disagree, of course!  Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , why would you just erase the edit that is currently under discussion? I think it would be better if you attempted to take part in the discussion rather that telling other users that their contribution is "silly" or "meaningless". ThaiWanIII (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The proposed edit is not viable. There is an entire Wikipedia process for dealing with this, e.g. WP:BRD. Thus we reject idiotic assaults on the to the encyclopedia, whether they are HT's bizarre polemic nonsense, or other unsupported nonsense. You don't like it? Run it up the flagpole of maintaining an encyclopedia instead of a battleground for partisan stupidity, and see what happens. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of Logo
Just curious, why was the logo in the infobox reverted to the older one with the red arrow? The blue arrow logo was used much more frequently in the general election, and I just figured that would be the one to stay on the article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am with you on this. The light blue/dark blue logo was by far the most common of the species. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)