Talk:Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 2

Undocumented Hispanic children
User:Scjessey: Why did you remove this referenced info? It may be an inconvenient truth, but you are free to watch the video from The Huffington Post, where she says undocumented children "should be sent back" to Central America, and she adds, "We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay.".Zigzig20s (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because of the way you phrased it. Your brief statement lacked any context whatsoever. Do better. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How would you like to rephrase it please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I watched her say that during the PBS debate. Her phrasing of Obama administration strategy to discourage more children starting out was unfortunate, and there were political commentators who said so. You might cite one of those comments. Not sure it has staying power with respect to notability though. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I think we should stick to the sources. The video on The Huffington Post is pretty clear: she wanted to deport undocumented Hispanic children to send a message. Christiane Amanpour even pressed her about it, and HRC persisted. So that's her position, and it should appear in the article!Zigzig20s (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I think we should stick to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Everything in due weight. This is another Nothing Burger with Fries. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't confuse Undue with I just don't like it. This was not undue weight because it was only one sentence.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If we covered every single thing with "only one sentence", this article would be like a Tolstoy novel. You obviously don't have a proper grasp of the meaning of undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The deportation of Hispanic children is not a minor issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It may or may not be a significant issue. The bigger issue is undocumented immigrants and immigration policy. If that subject gets an entire paragraph, I would not think that the specific case of what to do about undocumented children caught at the border, or driver's licenses, would be one of the 3-5 major points to make in that paragraph. There are some far more significant, substantive aspects to the underlying policy, and the campaigning and campaign issues/positions that make that up: paths to citizenship, asylum, requirements on employers, family reunification, and so on. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidemon: I agree with you that there needs to be a way for everyone to be in the US legally and the government needs to give more visas to workers and investors. However, that's not really the point. She wants to deport Hispanic children; she's on camera saying it, and I think this article should be NPOV, not a campaign ad, no matter how heartless she comes across.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You miss the point of what I said. I take no position here on what policy should be. I said that there are major aspects of policy, and this is not necessarily one of the leading ones. Saying something on camera during a campaign is not the standard for what makes an sub-issue significant of the larger policy question. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think she is probably a sweet old lady. But I don't think this is a detail. America has millions of Hispanic children.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "She wants to deport Hispanic children" is an absurd statement. In the last town hall thingy they had, she was asked about this by a Sanders supporter and she explained that her policy would be to discourage people from Central and South America from sending their children because it was dangerous for the children. Your outrageous characterizations ignore this nuanced position. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In the Christiane Amanpour interview (with the video I shared), she was talking about Hispanic children who were already in the US. She wanted to deport them "to send a clear message".Zigzig20s (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's another mischaracterization. In the video, despite badgering by Amanpour, she said once it can be determined if the children will be safe, where possible they should be reunited with their families. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * By being deported to the very dangerous countries they fled in the first place. And if they're orphans--tough luck!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, that is just bullshit. She specifically said "if possible" and "depending on their circumstances". You paint her as unfeeling, but imagine what a Republican would do! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't paint her as anything; she presents herself this way. Btw, you may want to read a bit more about Republicans.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Primaries
User:Scjessey continues to revert well-sourced material without giving any reason supported in Wikipedia policy. The latest example. Repeated aggressive editing should be based on Wikipedia polity, not personal opinion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In a series of edits I made changes to the primary/caucus material to reflect the fact that this article is about Hillary Clinton's campaign, not Bernie's campaign. I also removed irrelevant percentage data from caucuses (since only delegates count) and entrance poll data (which exit poll and results data has shown to be inaccurate). These sensible changes were inexplicably reverted by Fred Bauder, who seems to not understand the mechanics of caucus primaries. I've restored my changes because they reflect updated and accurate data, not the stale inaccurate data that was there before. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Fred Bauder, I don't "continue to revert well-sourced material" et al. All of my editing decisions are policy-based and I'll thank you to assume good faith in future. I understand you are disappointed some of the stuff you have written has been removed, but leaving out-of-date, inaccurate or irrelevant material in the article makes no sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Fred Bauder. You do revert a whole lot of well-sourced material. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with Ownership of content.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you are both wrong. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We are simply trying to reflect what the overwhelming majority of third-party references from the press say. Your constant redaction of well-sourced material seems POV. Do you have a close connection to HRC's campaign?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What the fuck are you talking about? There's no "overwhelming majority of third-party references" saying squat. There is a difference between what the fuck actually happened and was reported by the media, and the guesswork of entrance polls that I removed from the article. New information superseded old information. There's no "constant redaction" of anything - that's just your misguided opinion. And I'm not connected to any campaign. I'm not even a fucking American. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, that's out of line. Please remain civil. Jonathunder (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How so? Profanity is perfectly okay on Wikipedia and my points are well made. This guy just accused me of being a shill for a candidate, so I get to say otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Profanity is not perfectly okay. Please see WP:IUC. Jonathunder (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The entrance or exit polls contain demographic information which is of great interest. For example, a full description of the Nevada caucuses would discuss whites' preference for Saunders, African-Americans' preference for Clinton, Latino support for Clinton which weakened somewhat leading up to the caucuses, but overwhelming support from unionized Latino casino workers in Clark County. Similar analyses for South Carolina have been published in reliable sources. This can get too fine grained, but brief summaries of particularly notable trends could be included. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Fred Bauder: I couldn't agree more!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of that sort of analysis, although this particular piece is about Sanders. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But Fred, the stuff that was in the article before was exclusively from entrance polls, which proved to be inaccurate. For example, the Hispanic vote broke dramatically for Clinton in Nevada when the entrance data indicated the exact opposite. There are other articles that go deeper into the weeds about this sort of stuff, and trying to shoehorn it all in here is both redundant and undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe it was proper for User:Scjessey to remove the percentage information. I have restored it. It has just as much or greater notability than the delegate count and other presidential campaign articles also have the percentages listed.--ICat Master (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, and I've restored it. The percentage information has zero value in caucuses. Zero. It only matters in regular primaries. It appears your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to revert my edits. Do you ever have anything of your own to contribute? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Although the popular vote does not control the outcome of the caucus, the popular vote is important to note the actual level of support. Note that for the actual presidential election where a similar electoral vote actually counts, we still display the popular vote. It is widely reported, and deep analysis of the difference between the popular and delegate counts are exceptionally common and notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. In the general election, vote totals are recorded. In caucus primaries, not everyone who shows up to caucus actually votes. For example, in Nevada an MSNBC reporter noted a number of people who had showed up to caucus in the New York New York casino had to leave before the caucus was over because they had to go back to work (they'd only been given 3 hours). The numbers matter in regular primaries, but they are inaccurate and irrelevant in caucus primaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They are still weighed heavily in public and media perception. As I've stated, other presidential campaign articles on Wikipedia report the especially notable percentages and this shouldn't be an exception.--ICat Master (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Hispanic polling was probably accurate, which is the most of what we expect from any polls. I do not see any reliable sources questioning them.  TFD (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are tons of reliable sources out there questioning that Hispanic polling. Here's a solid example. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That source is very good, but is also a good example of the problems involved. Our article is not an advanced seminar in political science. Brief summaries need to be used, but they should not be misleading. In this particular case unionized Latino workers in Clark County made a contribution to Clinton's campaign which overcame state-wide Latino preferences. It is very hard to justify an extended and accurate presentation of this in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely, which is why we must leave out this inaccurate and irrelevant stuff which can be properly explored in greater depth in the articles devoted to the election specifics. Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 and Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Black lives matter protester
I've reverted edits that introduced a section called "Miscellaneous controversies" primarily because it would instantly become a shit magnet, but also because it is unclear if this incident with the misguided protester has anything to do with the presidential campaign itself. Certainly there are some serious WP:UNDUE concerns here as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is DUE to mention HRC's ongoing conflict with the Black Lives Matter movement. Perhaps we could have a "Conflict with Black Lives Matter" subsection?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey, there is no consensus, and cannot be in Wikipedia policy, to remove notable, well-sourced, relevant negative information from an article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is completely WP:UNDUE and written in a very scandalous way. No way should we include the slanderous rants of a single protester in this article. - MrX 17:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ETA: Wording like this: "...her past statements in support of incarceration of "super predators""" will be removed as the blatant WP:BLP violation that it is if it's reinserted., please see WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.- MrX 17:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the above comment violates BLP; remember that Ashley Williams is also a living person. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is Hillary Clinton speaking in Keene, New Hampshire, on January 25, 1996. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see problems with that wording actually. The problem wording would be stuff such as was previously proposed/discussed about "calling black children superpredators" or "mass incarceration of black children" etc, which is putting words into her mouth. But she indeed did call for incarceration of "gangs of kids" who were "superpredators" who needed to be "brought to heel".  Now, WP:UNDUE is a better argument at this point, as you say it is one protester. But if this continues to be an issue for her, it may become WP:DUE. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This incident is being widely reported and commented on. Clearly, it passes the basic test for notability. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is clearly notable and DUE, and it should not have been redacted from the article. It has received considerable coverage in the national press and HRC herself has addressed the issue. Please reinsert it!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to call the section "black lives matter protesters." Or include it in a section about her relationship with African Americans.  There should be a section about that because it has been widely discussed and is critical to her winning the nomination.  It would also be more neutral than a controversies section.  TFD (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could have a subsection about her ongoing conflict with Black Lives Matter and Michelle Alexander's essay, both of which have been widely discussed in the media.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In order to observe the spirit of neutrality, it should encompass all aspects of her relationship with African Americans. Most of it is positive, but having the section you suggest would imply it is entirely negative.  TFD (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This Chicago Tribune article presents this in a neutral manner. There is no reason to have  a dedicated section for this. I agree it may fit into the overall context of her relationship with African Americans, as it relates to her campaign. What we should not do it simply quote her out of context, portraying her in the worst possible light.- MrX 20:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the event should be included, in an encyclopedic manner.--ICat Master (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Chicago Tribune story is indeed very good, and does not hold back at all, describing her statements in 1994 as "dog whistle language while also including her apologetics. I'll look at the article and see if we have a section on her relations with African-Americans. That is one option. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The original section might be renamed Notable incidents rather than miscellaneous criticisms and be used to include both positive and negative incidents. She is running an ad in Colorado which shows her interacting with a young Mexican girl whose parents are at risk of deportation. That is also a particularly notable incident as she comforts and reassures the girl. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Pushing Clinton on her past statements as Williams did is eminently fair. What isn’t fair is ignoring what Clinton promises to do to fix the glaring problems unleashed by a bill Sanders voted for and Clinton’s husband signed into law." Hillary Clinton on ‘superpredator’ remarks: ‘I shouldn’t have used those words’. I think we can use that opinion, of Jonathan Capehart in The Washington Post, as a guide. The incident needs to be put into the context of Clinton's current positions and efforts. However, it should not be excluded. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But why should it not be combined with information about her support by the Congressional Black Caucus SuperPAC and African Americans? While I understand the argument that the Clintons  betrayed African Americans, we need to balance that with the support they provide to her, which is what mainstream sources do.  If we present this information, readers can decide how to evaluate her relationship.  TFD (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Here is her speech on criminal justice reform delivered in April 2015 (after the Baltimore riot) User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The section you created, "African-American support," in my opinion, provides neutrality. Thanks.  TFD (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been away from my computer since I created this talk section and I'm delighted to see this has all been worked out in a satisfactory manner without me. I'm much happier with the new section title and the new text. Well done, folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What the? This is not a political ad. I have trimmed the subhead to "African-Americans", but the whole section is POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your latest edit; African American support for Clinton is clearly notable. If it is POV it is their point of view, generally. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are black Republicans. And many blacks support Sanders on the Democratic side. HRC does not own the black vote.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * True enough but the majority of Black Democrats support Clinton. That might change, but as of now it is simply a fact. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We will know more tomorrow and after Super Tuesday, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-south-carolina-will-clintons-expected-victory-shift-momentum/2016/02/26/72622cb0-dc30-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s Your latest series of edits is unacceptable. Vice is an acceptable source, while the exact words of Clinton are not? You have crafted a short section that makes Clinton look like a monster no sane African American would support. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is how she presents herself. I think she should stick to reliable sources. The section does say that she has changed her mind in recent years.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors in this section that 's version does a very nice job of balancing the facts without taking sides. It's about as neutral as it can possibly be.- MrX 16:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It made it sound like she owned the black vote.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not supposed to be a political ad. If we fail to reach consensus, the subsection might be UNDUE (in spite of all the media coverage of Alexander's essay, etc.)?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Fred Bauder's version looks anything like an political ad. Your version is problematic for a few reasons.
 * The topic sentence sways the reader to believing that Alexander speaks for all African Americans. ("warned her community")
 * Undue emphasis on the importance of the comments of a single activist.
 * The last sentence is blatantly WP:OR and it uses an unreliable source.
 * I'm not going to edit war over this, but I want to be on record as strongly opposing both of Zigzig20s' versions, which give excessive emphasis to a minority opinion and cast Clinton in a overly-negative light.- MrX 17:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Zigzig20s' version is awful, with far too much weight given to fringe views. Restored to version that obviously has consensus of Fred, Mr X, TFD, me and others. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the first sentence because: 1)The Young Turks is not a reliable source, in the same way as MSNBC or Fox News aren't. 2) The sentence sounded like she thought she owned the black vote. I have also added Michelle Alexander's name with third-party references to avoid adding a "by whom" tag to "Clinton was criticized for her view". I believe this is a good compromise. Her donations from the GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America are not OR as they were referenced, but in the spirit of consensus, I am willing to let this go. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the Young Turks, but your claim that MSNBC and Fox News are not reliable is very wrong. Please stop edit warring against consensus, and please heed the advice that I and Gaijin42 have already given you about discretionary sanctions that apply to this page, and the main biography. Folks are going to lose patience if this continues, and the next stop will be WP:AE.- MrX 18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Biased sources are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Besides, my last comment shows that I am trying to reach consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You are in fact quite wrong. WP:BIASED. MrX is very right here. And I say this as one of the more obvious conservative voices in these articles. Some of the issues you are pressing to be put in to the articles are appropriate for inclusion somewhere and somehow. But the way you put them in is ridiculously WP:POV and WP:BLP violating, and will end with you getting a topic ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: I'm sorry, but you're wrong: see WP:BIASED. You don't reach consensus by edit warring against consensus. - MrX 18:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But if it's a left-wing website saying black voters support her, it's not reliable. I am trying to reach consensus here. Please assume good faith.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Another consensus-building effort: I don't think the title "African-American Support" is NPOV at all. It assumes she is supported by black voters (at the expense of her competitors). That is wrong. Thus, I think "African-Americans" would be unbiased and encyclopedic.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I read "African-American Support" as discussing her level of support (which could include non-support), not saying she has it. But there are probably even more neutral titles such as "Relationship with African American Community" or something. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be preferable.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Gaijin42: So can you please change it? Perhaps "Relationship with African-Americans" would be even better?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Delegates mean everything
Since delegates are more important than anything else in the primaries, I have edited the article to reflect that. I have also added additional and more up-to-date sourcing. Presumably this will satisfy our resident Reversion Warrior, who keeps using "see talk" for an excuse to revert all of my edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We need a section about the superdelegates...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There already is. See Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we need to add more referenced info about the extensive media coverage about this, including the DNC chair's wavering statements and the anti-superdelegate petition.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. The argument for and against superdelegates is not a matter for this article, which is specifically about Hillary Clinton's campaign. Nor should it be in the equivalent Bernie Sanders article. The place to explore this cycle's Democratic primary process is Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes really, because HRC has an overwhelming majority of superdelegates, even in states where she lost the popular vote like NH, and there's been countless media coverage about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. The superdelegate system has been around since the mid '80s, with an ever-reducing share of the final delegate totals. All the candidates were familiar with the system going into the election, so there's no reason for complaint. The minutiae of the primary process should not be addressed in candidate-specific campaign articles. The media fucked up by adding superdelegates to pledged delegate totals, freaking out a few Bernie fans. That's too bad and no fault of Hillary or the Democratic Party. This is the wrong article for such things. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are countless third-party references about this. It should be in the article. Very DUE indeed.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If super delegates play a role, such as deserting Clinton en masse, it might be relevant. What is happening now is that most Democratic office holders are supporting Clinton. Not news. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The media thinks it's news and a campaign issue. Opining about it as a Wikipedia editor would be original research.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen or heard any media coverage about superdelegates since Ohio. Maybe it's a big thing in the right-wing nutjob websites or the BernieBro websites? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's everywhere, including on MSNBC.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. I've been watching MSNBC almost continuously for three weeks. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's on youtube. There are lots of third-party references in the written press as well. Google it.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. It's about the Democratic Party's primary processes. It would be undue weight to go into it here unless there's some sort of well-covered revolt where superdelegates suddenly switch or something. Fred said the same thing earlier. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the new structure and I would advise returning it to the previous version. Percentages are weighed a LOT more heavily in public and media perception so they should be given more weight on Wikipedia (and they are - on other presidential election articles). I also think readers would be more interested to read the percentages. I will wait for another editor to chime in again, but it appears you are the only one advocating for this change.--ICat Master (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Look at the election coverage in the media, and specifically in the sources we provide, and you will see that delegates are given prominence. Public perception and "what you think" is meaningless, because we go with the sources. As for being "the only one advocating" this version, I refer you to WP:SILENCE. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you revert every single one of my edits, with little or no talk page discussion and no attempt to gain a consensus for your actions? Could it be because you are single-purpose agenda-driven POV warrior, uncannily like Mouse001 was? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It might seem that way to you. I revert your edits more so than others because they tend to have POV. I do not revert edits without existing consensus. You have repeatedly tried to re-insert material without consensus on the talk page and I have not done so.--ICat Master (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that is a falsehood. My edits do not "have POV", as you put it. My edits are all scrupulously neutral. Please explain how selecting the sources that use a single decimal point over sources that use two decimal points is POV? Also, I completely reject your assertion about consensus. Nobody has complained but you, and the views of a single purpose, agenda-driven editor don't count as much as the views of editors who are editing purely for the betterment of the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I was right, and so there likely won't be a response: Sockpuppet investigations/Mouse001/Archive. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If we are going to include percentages, it makes sense we use the same number format for all of them. A single decimal point is sufficient, since that is the most accurate data we can get for the bulk of the contests. We should only use other number formats if single decimals are unavailable. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Super Tuesday results
I've begun adding in Super Tuesday results, but I've limited additions to those results where 100% of precincts are reporting. I'm using NYT's live results page as a guide as to when the final totals are in. Some are close, with only 1 or 2 precincts failing to report. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost done with this. Just Colorado to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I gave up waiting. Colorado had all sorts of problems with caucuses, so I went ahead and put the result in and whacked in a bit of blurb to explain. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Democrats Abroad
It's still going on, but the Democrats Abroad primary is running. Sanders is dominating Clinton by a factor of 2 to 1, although it is not very significant in terms of delegate count. I am not sure how to incorporate this into the article, but it is certainly something that should happen once the final results are in (after March 8). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrarily archived talkpage topics should be restored
User:MrX: Why are you suddenly archiving lots of topics of discussion on this talkpage? That is always done by a bot as far as I know.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Where are the archives btw? I don't see them. For example HRC's policy of deporting Hispanic children or her billionaire donors.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because as activity on this page increases, editing it becomes more cumbersome. It's a pretty common practice. I archived anything that has been stale for a fortnight or more. I have no objection to any of the threads being restored here, if someone thinks a discussion is still ongoing.- MrX 14:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, please restore them all and let the bot do it within a month!Zigzig20s (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Linked in the box that says 'archive' at the top of the page. Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016/Archive_2. - MrX 14:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If the discussions are stale, and especially if they aren't over something controversial, I aagree that early archiving improves usability of the page. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They are controversial. user: MrX: Please restore them; I object to their archival prior to a month. I think we should just let the bot do its job in case they really are stale, to avoid suspicions about certain editors who may want to "archive" certain "controversial" topics.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , this not a beauracracy. If you feel that strongly about restoring any of the old threads, then do so. Franky, this is the first time I can recall anyone complaining about archiving old threads. It seems rather nugatory.- MrX 15:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * user: MrX: You did this. Can you please restore them? I am not sure how to restore them. I don't have rollback.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't restore them. It says, "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually.".Zigzig20s (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stale discussions can and should be archived. It is not something to be "suspicious" about unless you are an avid fan of Infowars. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we should let the bot do it once a month! Please restore them.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we should let the bot do it as often as is necessary to make sure the page doesn't get too long. Normally, anything untouched for a week can be safely archived. Longer periods are fine for articles that get very little attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The threads were not done. We simply have busy lives. One month is good, one week is not enough time. We have not reached consensus about HRC's support for the deportation of Hispanic children, her billionaire donors, etc. Those topics should not be "archived". Please restore them!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anyone agree with you. If something matters to you that much, just create a new section. It's not difficult. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Scjessey on this one. If there is one you wish to discuss further, restore it, or start a new section. All of the regulars have said what they are likely to say on those threads.But asking for a blanket restore, in the hopes that someone new drifts by to comment on it is not helping anything. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Advert
Textbook example of POV warrior behavior right there. Can't get what you want? Simply slap a badge of shame on it and everyone will know it is part of the vast, left-wing conspiracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is significant bias throughout the article. Namely, the persistent redaction of referenced information about the secret Goldman Sachs speeches, the billionaire donors, the terrifying coughing attacks, etc. Until the content is NPOV, I believe the "advertisement" tag makes sense.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are reasons to think this article needs work. The lack of a section about coughing is not one of them. The speeches are a notable absence. I believe progress is being made in that area. The donors bit I think could be included, but some of your suggested wording or sourcing has been far from optimal. Find sources discussing her billionaire donors, and especially discussing any alleged hypocritical-ism (what is the right conjucation here?) in that arena and then something can probably be put in, but your previous efforts in that particular topic amount to mostly ranting. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I think I have been very fair. There are many references about the coughing attacks. I stick to the sources, but I don't try to interpret them.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But we agree on the secret Goldman Sachs transcripts. They should not be redacted from the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources out there saying how Americans can defend themselves from one of Hillary's terrifying coughing attacks? Is an air strike in order? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Her health status matters. We already know she takes medication for her coughing fits. I think one or two lines are necessary. What is she hiding about her health?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you're not getting much traction on this, you may want to consider posting an WP:RfC to invite outside comments. It doesn't seem like everyone repeating the same arguments is moving this forward.- MrX 11:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What would be the point? Does anyone else think the "terrifying coughing attacks" are a thing worth covering? It would suspect an RfC would be fruitless. That said, I have no objection to Zigzig20s giving it a whirl. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't encourage it. Going through a seemingly pointless and likely fruitless procedural exercise isn't the most efficient way for editors to work together here. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the coughing issue is BS, but if Zizzag could provide some of the sources he thinks show importance, that would go a long way to resolving the issue. My gut is that its some random blogs or whatever that were just poking a stick at her, or as the story of the day, and not any notable or reliable source actually alleging a serious health issue. We have a health section, but currently that health section is effectively refuting an issue that we aren't discussing. The letter noted that there has been a "complete resolution" of a brain concussion that Clinton suffered in 2012 and "total dissolution" of prior blood clots" There should probably be a slightly larger mention of the incident that this is referring to, and a brief (1 sentence) weasel mention that some people were concerned it could have affected her campaign. The doctors note then responds to that.

The article is imperfect, but silly tags don't improve it. Jonathunder (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There were reliable references in the prior discussion but they were "archived".Zigzig20s (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The boston ref is a refutation that there is an issue, it cannot be used as a source backing that there is an issue. The CT source  while it does show the narrative you are going for, is ultimately sourced to two tweets and WND. I think these are insufficient for discussing the coughing issue at all. However, I agree that you are free to make an RFC, but I am quite sure that RFC will end up for consensus against inclusion, and I suggest you spend everyone's time more wisely on issues that actually have a chance for being developed in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"Relationship with the LGBT community" (sic)
Should we remove this section? Or at least trim it significantly? She has a history of being opposed to same-sex marriage until very recently, and the section looks like marketing material at the moment.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think some of it could be kept. But the endorsements should be moved to List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 and the opinion polls should be removed.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's good material, but I think it should be trimmed to about 25% of its current size. I agree that the endorsements can be moved and the opinion polls removed (or summarized).- MrX 13:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoever removes the endorsements from this article needs to make sure they are listed in the appropriate article. So this requires double-checking them one by one--it's a lengthy process. user: MrX: Do you have time to do this please? I am far too busy this weekend.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the material. If someone thinks the endorsements are worth adding to endorsements article (assuming they are not already there), they can find them in the article history.- MrX 12:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This section should be removed. A sentence somewhere that Clinton strongly supports LGBT rights is enough; her history with respect to this matter is typical of many political leaders: When she observed the major change in public opinion which occurred, she endorsed it. She does not differ from the baseline. Endorsements, of course, can be moved to endorsements. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Fred Bauder: I think you're right. The Wall Street Journal reminds us that, "Not until 2013 did she take the position that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.". But there is more--we had to wait for Joe Biden to become Secretary of State and finally appoint someone like Randy W. Berry. I think the subhead is misleading to begin with--she has no relationship with the LGBT community--perhaps with the Democratic establishment like the Human Rights Campaign, but that is a different matter.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think her views on don't ask don't tell and DOMA are significant as not all political leaders, including Sanders, shared them. But the section is too verbose. She is more popular among openly LGBT voters than Sanders, although they generally see Sanders as more supportive of LGBT rights. But more LGBT people see them as the same and probably the issue is not decisive to them. TFD (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with polls is that they are not reliable and we could find similar polls saying everyone in WeHo is feeling the bern. Should we stick to the facts and add, "HRC supported anti-gay policies like marriage discrimination for the first 65 years of her life. However, three years ago, she changed her mind and decided to support same-sex marriage."?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, that exactly what we should say. Kidding aside, I agree we should omit endorsements and polls. Actually, if we removed the second paragraph of the section, I think we would be getting close.- MrX 17:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Zigzig20s - Wow. Just wow. You don't see anything wrong with what you just wrote? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Point of order. Why the '(sic)' in the talk section header? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The OP loves Hillary but obviously does not think that she actually has a relationship with the LGBT community.- MrX 21:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just sticking to the sources. The WSJ tells us she promoted marriage discrimination until 2013, three years ago. I like Hillary for her nation-building eagerness, not as a gay man. LGBT people are not single-issue voters.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You've taken a Journal opinion piece and contorted it to sound positively horrific. It's such a shocking bastardization of the source that it's probably the most egregious and astonishing example of pure anti-Clinton bias Wikipedia is ever likely to see. It's right up there with calling pro-choice people "baby murderers" and the like. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Did she not want to prevent me from getting married to someone I loved until 2013? Yes, she did (according to the WSJ). That's homophobic.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * She believed in civil unions for same-sex partners, but until 2013 her (erroneous) view was that marriage was a religious thing. Despite what the WSJ blogger said, that is not the same as denying rights. But the problem isn't so much the facts, as the way you presented them. It's troubling that you don't see anything wrong with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Civil unions are "separate but equal" and thus homophobic. It is troubling that you can't see that. Anyway, I am glad she hasn't held homophobic views for the past three years--as far as we know.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sake. Don't imply I'm homophobic as a way to deflect from your obvious anti-Clinton bias. There's been dramatic social change in the last few years, and it takes a while for older and/or more religious people to get on the right side of history. Clinton is a fairly religious person who grew up in a time when marriage equality wasn't even something people considered, yet she has still "evolved" quicker than most other politicians have done (I'm looking at you, most Republicans!) and that is a good thing, not a bad thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about you. I don't care about you; I care about improving the article, which is what the talkpage is for (it's not for swearing either, btw). No, she only "evolved" three years ago; that's not quick at all. I love HRC, but she did support anti-gay discrimination for the first 65 years of her life; that's a fact.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "It's troubling that you don't see anything wrong with it." - That's your implication that I am homophobic. And your oft-professed "love" for HRC is peculiar given your near constant vigilance in doing whatever you can to make Wikipedia portray her in a negative light. Incidentally, my profanity was an exclamation and not directed to anyone in particular, so despite this request I will not be refactoring my comment because it does not violate WP:CIVIL. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there was no such implication. Please make sure to be civil and assume good faith. And I simply stick to the sources in a NPOV manner about HRC. She's only supported LGBT equality for the past three years--that's a fact--it took her 65 years but she finally got there.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, this is just ludicrous. If you could show a source that says she spent the entire first 65 years of her life (from birth!) actively endorsing marriage discrimination and claimed this was for personal reasons, rather than political reasons, then you would have a fair point. But there's no way you are going to find a source that is anywhere close to that, because it simply isn't true. Don't forget that until recently, same-sex marriage has been opposed by a majority of Americans. As an American politician, it would be politically difficult for her to support same-sex marriage, regardless of any personal feelings she had on the matter. I will agree Clinton has taken longer than many other mainstream Democrats to publicly support same-sex marriage (and this is not a good thing), but it is by no means unusual. Certainly her recent evolution isn't really notable when compared to that of other politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, since homosexuality was illegal when she was born, and she was no Stonewall hero, it is fair to say that she promoted anti-gay policies from birth (even passively so). In any case, the section needs some context. We need to add that she was against marriage equality until 2013, at the very least.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell you you are attempting satire, or are serious. In either case, its not working. These kind of statements are for facebook, not an encyclopedia. As one of the people who happens to agree with you occasionally, I will repeat my earlier advice to you that if you continue in this path it will likely end in a topic ban for you. The article already mentions her support of DOMA and opposition to same sex marriage. Its possible those could be fleshed out slightly, but certainly any implications about "from birth" are ludicrous. If you can find reliable sources discussing her staking out an earlier position, especially if that source contrasts/puts it in the context of the campaign, bring it up. Otherwise, you are just wasting everyone's time. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One other brief comment on this, in addition to the sanctions you risk, you do yourself a disservice. By spending your capital and time on items such as this, you cannot spend it elsewhere, such as the section immediately below where there is a discussion going on about something that is actually include-able in the article. By staking out ridiculous positions, you are going to train people to ignore your threads and comments. There is plenty of legitimate fodder to throw at Clinton, we don't have to stretch into unreasonableness to find it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Gaijin42: I've added "until 2013" to the subsection. I will check if there are articles about HRC's so-called relationship with us in the Journal of Homosexuality and other serious publications. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment about Reagans and AIDS advocacy
I guess we should add her glowing support for Reagan's record on AIDS.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * She says she misspoke, and tweeted out as much soon after. No big deal. Besides, Reagan's abysmal record has undergone so much revisionism in recent years it's amazing anyone noticed. He's gone from a deficit-ballooning, ray-gun-building seller of arms to Iran to a conservative saint who could do no wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This gaffe should probably be covered very briefly in this section (1 sentence)Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a gaffe because if you watch the interview, she says "the other point I wanted to make too is...". It was intentional; she had prepared this awful historical revisionism prior to the interview. We could add a short paragraph. I am too aghast to look for more sources right now--she has zero understanding of LGBT history!Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No. There's no way this is going in the article. Absolutely no way. She misspoke, and released a statement soon after. WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:WEIGHT all apply here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I agree with User:Gaijin42 that it should be included. She did not misspeak; it was intentional, as the direct quote above shows.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * She says she misspoke. She released an apology soon after. Any attempt to include this would violate WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to your eminent afd at the entire article written about Binders full of womenGaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no comparison. It was a YUGE gaffe by Romney, drawing weeks of ridicule. "Binders full of women" even entered the public lexicon and is still used today. Maybe not as big as the 47% comment, but in the same ballpark. Unless you have a crystal ball, you have no idea if this comment by Clinton will have any effect at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey: This was an extremely offensive premeditated remark by HRC. You are making things worse by trying to minimize it, as she did with the tweet. This was not a blooper like Iraq, which she can just write off as a brain freeze. This is extremely offensive to everyone, but especially so to the LGBT community. Many people died because of the "Silence = Death" policy that HRC praised.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be pointless to add every outrage-of-the-day from the outrage industry. At least not until we can confirm it has become the outrage-of-the-month. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a traumatizing remark for the LGBT community. Larry Kramer famously referred to Reagan as "Adolf Reagan" because of his silence=death policy. She has zero understanding of gay culture/history.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Zigzig20s: Do any sources say that here remark was premeditated? If so, that deserves at least a few sentences. Otherwise, one or two sentences at most should probably be included in this article.- MrX 17:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was premeditated because if you watch the interview, she says "the other point I wanted to make too is...".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (Time index 4:05 for those who don't want to watch the whole interview). I don't see how her comments show premeditation, which I take to mean "intentionally offensive to LGBT people". More likely is that her communications person fed her some bad talking points before the interview.- MrX 18:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing "intentionally offensive", merely that this was not a spontaneous comment, or response to a gotcha question etc. Either she sincerely believed this, and then had to walk it back, or was ignorant. Either one is a legitimate concern to LGBT groups as the great number of sources indicate. NYT, MotherJones, New Yorker, Salon, NPR, Esquire, gawker, huffpo, cnn, politico, and many others have all written in depth articles dedicated to this topic. a sentence or two is not undue. "At the funeral service for Nancy Reagan, Clinton credited the Reagans with starting the national conversation about AIDS. The comments drew heavy criticism from LGBT groups and the media, who said that the Reagans had ignored the issue, causing Clinton to apologize and retract her statement." Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. That wording seems fine to me.- MrX 19:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is good wording. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we cannot know what significance if any her comments will have, other than that they are in the news today.  So it is likely that what the article says will change, but this is the best way to present it today.  TFD (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Gaijin42: Yes, good wording. You have full consensus to add it.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No no no. Again, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. Removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 4 editors have expressed support for the information. 3 of them for that specific wording. You made your argument. Ignoring WP:CON is likely to lead to sanctions for you. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's more than enough WP:WEIGHT: . WP:NOTNEWS means we are not a newspaper but it plainly advises that article content can be derived from news. WP:RECENT is an essay, and even it does not say to avoid recent events, but to make sure that we write from historical perspective. Specifically, " Wikipedia has been praised for the way it deals with current news breaks."


 * This content caps the Reagan legacy nicely, in the historical context of the candidacy of the presumptive Democrat nominee for president. It's kind of important information.- MrX 22:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

agreed. Actually for recentism, I would argue it doesn't really apply to this topic at all.If this was clinton's BLP I would agree, but this is the campaign article. The whole campaign will only last a year. the entire article probably fails the WP:10YT. The level of additional restriction on any particular event within the year long campaign is fairly insignificant. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary, recentism, NOT:NEWS and weight are doubly important on topics that are in the current news cycle because there is a great tendency of editors to breathlessly add stuff that quickly becomes stale and irrelevant. The amount of useful content proposed every day may be high, but the amount of trivial stuff proposed every day is doubly high. Understandably, people who are attuned to LGBT issues are sensitive to this. On the other hand, Clinton and all the other candidates are making statements every day about this and other important things like history, poverty, race, opportunity, terrorism, gender, families, health, education, on and on. And the nature of politics is that there is always somebody turning everything into an offense or controversy. Every day there will be plenty of sourced coverage of every single candidate saying something that is portrayed as offensive, a gaffe, a misstatement or untruth. We have to be careful to sort out what is truly important and not, and it is often hard to tell in the day or week immediately following an event. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidemon: Everyone should be attuned to LGBT issues.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your core logic. when basically every source on the left is calling this out as an issue, its an issue. Even the sources that are typically heavily pro-Hillary slammed her on this one. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In the article "Hillary Clinton," the weight issue would probably preclude inclusion of this matter, certainly at this time. Whether Clinton becomes president or not, the campaign will not be the most important part of her career.  But this is an article about an event in the news, and we do not have the luxury of reliable tertiary sources and academic literature to establish weight.  The best we can do is add stories as they arise, then adjust the weight depending on the degree of ongoing coverage.  If in 2 days the issue is forgotten, then we should remove it.  The alternative is that we impose an embargo on all new stories, and have a lag between events and when we add them.  I think what we are doing is consistent with similar articles.  TFD (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest a delay of a few days before adding things like this, rather than having a big discussion over adding them, and then another over deleting them — that's if people are paying attention; if they are not paying attention, then the article will collect lots of dust. It's not an embargo, it's the point of notnews and recentivism. Similar articles have similar challenges, and suffer as a result if people lose sight. Wikipedia processes don't work well to be the most up-to-date source on everything in the world. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This should never be deleted. She insulted all those gay martyrs who died because of Reagan's silence = death policy. User:Gaijin42: You have my full support to add it.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Notnews and recentism should mean that this article does not exist. In the meantime we need to draw a compromise.  TFD (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's why User:Gaijin42's suggestion is perfect: it is totally neutral. I would want to add it was a homophobic thing for her to say, but perhaps it is difficult for heterosexual editors to see that--I'm happy to let it go for now as long as we add Gaijin42's suggestion. But as a member of WikiProject LGBT Studies for a decade, I had to speak up.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Editors being angry for what Hillary Clinton said" is not a good enough reason to include something. Do not bring your personal feelings (and perhaps just a little mock outrage?) into the editing process. I am sure all of us agree that what Clinton said was wrong, and Clinton herself has said this is so. It seems clear Clinton misremembered what happened 30 years ago and feels appropriately embarrassed by it. But the fact remains that this is problematic for several reasons. It's too recent to judge how important this is, and it is not clear if this will have any effect on her campaign (I'm guessing it will not have any effect on the number of votes she gets). In comparison to other campaign things, this is a minor issue, at least it very much appears so at the moment. So let's do what Wikidemon suggested - give it a few days and see if it becomes A Thing and if it does, we'll take another look at it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't think we need to wait to see if this is important. It already is. I supplied a long list of sources covering it. I can't understand the pushback on this, given that we have a large paragraph about a book tour with four sources, one of which is Mashable; we have a two paragraph Hillary quote under 'Kickoff rally'; We have dedicated section called 'Embracing Obama' which contains all of 20 words; we have a 'Focus on local issues' section that has a single source; and many more such examples of this article looking like an big WP:UNDUE campaign brochure. Yes, we need to include this AIDS gaffe, and the section on 'Relationship with the LGBT community' needs to be promoted to a more prominent position in the article. Fair warning: I'm going to start trimming the campaign cruft from this article since we seem to all agree that following WP:DUEWEIGHT (and presumably, WP:NOTPROMO) is essential.- MrX 13:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This matter needs time to mature. We cannot know how significant this will become (remember this article is about the campaign, and this is not even really a campaign thing). Unless you have a crystal ball telling you this is going to become significant to the campaign, you are simply wrong about this. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * you are now edit warring against a WP:CON of at least 5-2 I suggest you self-revert before you get sanctioned. People are getting topic banned from Bernie sanders for similar behavior right now. You wouldn't want to join them.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Gaijin42: Please see the end of the thread about the Goldman Sachs speeches above as well. He is relentless. We should be writing a NPOV article, not a campaign ad.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Scjessey is being a bit heavy handed, having now twice reverted this content even though there is rough consensus for including it. The counterargument "you are simply wrong" is not persuasive.- MrX 14:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The cruft, as he puts it, will have to be trimmed sooner or later (or else we leave this, like Wikipedia leaves many political articles, hopelessly messy and stale after interest dies down. We don't yet know what is cruft and what is an issue. So it's a matter of editing discipline. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not edit warring against consensus. Consensus is not a vote, but an agreement between editors. There's clear disagreement about this issue, and until the matter is resolved we should not be violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This needs time to mature before we can know if this is going to be a campaign issue. And if you have a specific problem with my behavior, go and report it at WP:ANI instead of just grandstanding. After more than 20,000 edits and a decade of contributions, I don't need to be lectured either. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a lecture, so much as a clarification: It's not going to be ANI; it's going to be AE.- MrX 16:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Good luck with that. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Second news cycle : http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-statement-apology-nancy-reagan-hiv-aids-comments] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has consumed the weekend. Big effing deal. Come back if it is still a big thing next weekend. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like there's consensus for a brief mention of this, and there was room for it once I trimmed some excess wording and detail, like the exact date she supported a particular bill or opposed some other. Jonathunder (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. Per WP:RECENT we should wait until the matter has matured. Besides, this article is about Clinton's campaign and the Reagan comment has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Is it possible several editors are forgetting which article they are working on? This paragraph should be removed immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey: Absolutely not! This happened during the campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of stuff happened during the campaign, but it is not part of the campaign and there is no evidence it has had an impact on the campaign. There hasn't even been a vote cast since the comment was made. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to be weigh in here, I agree what appears to be the rough consensus favoring inclusion at at a modest, appropriate level (1-3 sentences). The statement and the subsequent apology were well-covered in good sources, like the New York Times, Washington Post, and NPR.
 * While I personally very much doubt that the whole dust-up will impact the election's ultimate outcome, I think a brief mention of it in the context of a much longer article is appropriate. Neutralitytalk 14:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this is related to the campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I should think that it quite obviously explained by the sources, for example Washington Post: "In the intervening hours between her comments and the apology, the campaign and LGBT advocates conferred over the need to urgently address the comments..." Neutralitytalk 15:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the obvious "why do you think this is getting coverage, if not for the fact that she is the DNC front runner", numerous soures have commented specifically regarding the campaign. Is this going to take down her campaign? No. Should we write a huge section about it? No. But 2 sentences are more than appropriate considering the level of coverage this recieved, especially when compared to some of the crap PR fluff that is covered elswhere in the article (as MrX very rightly points out) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ThinkProgress "What started Friday as a flub turned into what may be the most detailed platform on fighting HIV/AIDS that any presidential candidate has ever issued" (Indicative that we should expand the "retracted" portion to include some mention of her more detailed apology and plan?)
 * Guardian "Talking about former first lady Nancy Reagan on MSNBC on Friday, current leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton credited “president and Mrs Reagan – in particular, Mrs Reagan”, for having “started a national conversation” about Aids.[...]But what was she trying to gain by praising the Reagans in this way in the first place? I fear that she was engaging in a kind of dog-whistling, using the moment of Nancy Reagan’s death to appeal to voters who nostalgically loved the Reagans and dream of morning in America again. I fear by invoking a false Aids history, she was appealing to those who want a simpler time before gays got uppity. Perhaps she wants to peel off some of the white men voting for Sanders in the primary. Perhaps she is trolling for Reagan Democrats who might consider her over Trump in making America great again."
 * NYT There were calls for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-rights group, to revoke its endorsement of Mrs. Clinton.
 * Vox (weaker here, but "who is the establishment" has been a running theme of the campaign) "Based on these facts, it's easy to imagine how someone in the political establishment like Clinton could remember a very different version of the Reagans' history on HIV/AIDS. For LGBTQ people and people with HIV at the time, it was a very different — and frankly worse — world at the height of the epidemic. And the establishment that Clinton was part of reflected that."
 * CNN Griffin's shot at Clinton is noteworthy given the gay rights activist's ties to the Democratic family. He campaigned with Clinton in Iowa in January.
 * Slate (Interview with Larry Kramer) "I wonder if Hillary had any notion of how hateful what she said is to so many people who were going to support her. For the first time I really questioned whether I’m going to vote for her.[...]I’m just so disappointed in her that I may just vote for Bernie. And I’m hearing that from a lot of gay people. The gay population is up in arms over this. I don’t think that she realizes that this is a big issue for us, what she has said in her stupidity"
 * CommonDreams (Guardian reporter) "But for those of us who care about Aids and LGBT people, it is much harder and important to criticize the frontrunner of the Democratic party, who takes the support of gay voters for granted. Why, in 2016, did the Democratic frontrunner engage so blithely in the erasure of the people who actually did start the “national conversation” about Aids?[...]Will gay voters and political groups, especially the Human Rights Campaign (which endorsed the other HRC months ago) demand that Clinton do more than say sorry, but demand that she audibly start a national conversation on Aids in America in 2016 – a time when it is still hard to talk about HIV? Will they question her praising Reagan’s Aids policies as a harbinger of deadly incremental things to come, given her claims to pragmatically work across the aisle in a way she says Bernie Sanders “never, ever” could? Will they hold their own, in this time, to as high a standard as they do the deceased leader of their opposition party – especially given her own pathetic past opposition on gay rights? This would be the only sincere way to begin to undo the damage Clinton has done to the men and women who fought, and still fight, Aids in the vacuum of political leadership."
 * usnews "Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton went from praising a fellow former first lady to damage control Friday, walking back remarks hailing the late Nancy Reagan and her husband, President Ronald Reagan, for leading the fight against HIV-AIDS in the 1980s."


 * This is by no means exhaustive, but I hope you find it helpful.


 * - MrX 15:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that; however, since this only happened recently and this article is meant to be written from the historical perspective, we still need to see how much the matter will actually have an impact (rather than it being a 4-day flash-in-the-pan that amounts to nothing) before we can consider inclusion. Ultimately, I can't stand in the way of tag team edit warriors. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So we should mention a mistaken comment by HRC at a funeral for a former first lady that was quickly retracted and an apology made? How is this notable for the campaign article? Since it happened not that long ago, there is not enough time to see if this minor blip turns out to be anything significant. Probably not, but it should not be added to the article until that is true. This is definitely political silly season. Dave Dial (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To omit this material would violate our neutral point of view policy. That has been aptly demonstrated by the presentation of many relevant sources. It's curious that the same complaints are not made about this, for example:
 * "On LGBT rights, she wants to see the right to same-sex marriage enshrined in the constitution.".
 * Where's the weight for that prominently placed campaign cruft? Wheres the editorial push back about the historical value of this unrealistic campaign promise? - MrX 16:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "To omit this material would violate our neutral point of view policy" - Nobody has called for this to be "omitted" from the article. I am simply saying that the issue has not yet matured enough for us to know if this is worthy of inclusion. What's the hurry? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that in addition to the weight issue from multiple sources, that is a cherry picked sentence from the source itself, and misrepresents the source to boot. The text as is is indeed an unrealistic goal, the actual quote from the story is much weaker and much more realistic (as should be obvious, since the ruling actually came through later) "Days later, she said through her campaign that she supports same-sex marriage being recognized as a constitutional right in a pending Supreme Court case."Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Scjessey: That argument could apply to anything on Wikipedia. The content already meets our standard for inclusion and a has achieved consensus. If you want to propose that this article be deleted and rewritten after the campaign, you're free to so. If you want to propose a policy that requires content to mature, then you're free to do so. As it stands now, there is no consensus for applying news embargos to our articles, but I suspect that you already understand that.- MrX 16:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, you confuse weight of numbers with weight of argument. "Consensus" is an agreement that emerges from discussion, not a majority decision. There's clearly no consensus here when there's substantive disagreement over content. Please stop misrepresenting reality. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not confused about anything, and there is not "substantive" disagreement. There's a small minority of editors grasping at straws and moving goalposts. Please just stop.- MrX 18:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I remain skeptical (meaning undecided, which would lead me to omit the material and review again in a week) that this is something notable as opposed to news fodder of the day. However, on whether it is a campaign issue versus some other kind of issue, nearly every public statement of a candidate during an election cycle is viewed through the lens of the campaign. She's out stumping, people are watching her, she makes speeches and attends events, supporters and opponents spin things, it's all inevitably part of the campaign cycle. If any other former Secretary of State or former Senator expressed praise for Nancy Reagan (and surely, others have) it would not be in the news. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So we should mention a mistaken comment by HRC at a funeral for a former first lady that was quickly retracted and an apology made? How is this notable for the campaign article? Since it happened not that long ago, there is not enough time to see if this minor blip turns out to be anything significant. Probably not, but it should not be added to the article until that is true. This is definitely political silly season. Dave Dial (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To omit this material would violate our neutral point of view policy. That has been aptly demonstrated by the presentation of many relevant sources. It's curious that the same complaints are not made about this, for example:
 * "On LGBT rights, she wants to see the right to same-sex marriage enshrined in the constitution.".
 * Where's the weight for that prominently placed campaign cruft? Wheres the editorial push back about the historical value of this unrealistic campaign promise? - MrX 16:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "To omit this material would violate our neutral point of view policy" - Nobody has called for this to be "omitted" from the article. I am simply saying that the issue has not yet matured enough for us to know if this is worthy of inclusion. What's the hurry? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that in addition to the weight issue from multiple sources, that is a cherry picked sentence from the source itself, and misrepresents the source to boot. The text as is is indeed an unrealistic goal, the actual quote from the story is much weaker and much more realistic (as should be obvious, since the ruling actually came through later) "Days later, she said through her campaign that she supports same-sex marriage being recognized as a constitutional right in a pending Supreme Court case."Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Scjessey: That argument could apply to anything on Wikipedia. The content already meets our standard for inclusion and a has achieved consensus. If you want to propose that this article be deleted and rewritten after the campaign, you're free to so. If you want to propose a policy that requires content to mature, then you're free to do so. As it stands now, there is no consensus for applying news embargos to our articles, but I suspect that you already understand that.- MrX 16:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, you confuse weight of numbers with weight of argument. "Consensus" is an agreement that emerges from discussion, not a majority decision. There's clearly no consensus here when there's substantive disagreement over content. Please stop misrepresenting reality. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not confused about anything, and there is not "substantive" disagreement. There's a small minority of editors grasping at straws and moving goalposts. Please just stop.- MrX 18:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I remain skeptical (meaning undecided, which would lead me to omit the material and review again in a week) that this is something notable as opposed to news fodder of the day. However, on whether it is a campaign issue versus some other kind of issue, nearly every public statement of a candidate during an election cycle is viewed through the lens of the campaign. She's out stumping, people are watching her, she makes speeches and attends events, supporters and opponents spin things, it's all inevitably part of the campaign cycle. If any other former Secretary of State or former Senator expressed praise for Nancy Reagan (and surely, others have) it would not be in the news. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Tuesday! (and more support for treating this as a campaign issue) https://www.salon.com/2016/03/15/sorry_hillary_but_were_done_keep_repeating_racist_myths_and_praising_kissinger_and_the_reagans_im_switching_to_bernie_sanders/Gaijin42 (talk)
 * That particular one is an opinion piece, reliable in its own way for describing that the gaffe happened, but not for providing weight. Anyway, I do see plenty of other new sources today as well. That it's worth including is starting to look likely (in my opinion). Should I ring a bell when ready? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant it primarily as an example of the story continuing past the initial news spike, and further evidence that the story is viewed as a campaign issue. That's mainly a wiki/meta argument. As a practical concern, I don't see us needing to use that particular source for anything. What other stories are you seeing? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's still not a good enough reason to include it. We've had months of hearing how Clinton needs to "stop shouting" and "smile more often", yet we don't cover that either. This is a Nothing Burger with Cheese. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey: The remark she made was unfortunate, but it was not trivial and she did not "misspeak", as she had clearly prepared to say it during the interview. It shows how little she knows about LGBT history. This should not be redacted from the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton opposed same-sex marriage until 2013
Hillary Clinton opposed same-sex marriage until 2013. It is "important". Is there not consensus to add this fact to the article?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. Where is the proof she "opposed" same-sex marriage until 2013? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We talked about it earlier. It's in The Wall Street Journal, "Not until 2013 did she take the position that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.".Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the point here, exactly? In 2004, it was considered revolutionary that Howard Dean supported civil unions. Things changed very quickly on this issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * She's only supported marriage equality for three years. It's two words and provides useful context. And it's a fact.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Also, the Murdoch Street Journal does not support the claim she opposed same-sex marriage until 2013. It only says it was 2013 when she first stated a public position of support. For all we know, she had "evolved" long before that. Please don't use Wikipedia as your soapbox. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Take the position" and "support" are not synonymous. It would be correct to say that she did not publicly support SSM until 2013.- MrX 20:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey: Please assume good faith. The Wall Street Journal is a highly respected newspaper, like The New York Times. I didn't try to use Fox News as a reference. Meanwhile, MSNBC is being used as a reference, which is not reliable as it is just as partisan as Fox News.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * user: MrX: HRC is a public person and nobody knows/cares about her personal views, so it seems redundant to stress that her opposition to marriage equality until three years ago was her publicly held view, but I don't mind your edit.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

you could probably improve neutrality by flipping the statement. "In 2013 she publicly announced support for gay marriage, which was a reversal of her previous support of DOMA and opposition to same sex marriage" This gets the 2013 in there, and is an undisputed fact. This avoids the speculation of when her private views changed, and also avoids any OR of "from birth" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Gaijin42: It's all the same to me, as long as we keep the "2013" bit. She's only supported marriage equality for three years; as you say, this is "an undisputed fact" and it should appear in the article. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Which was a reversal" et al would be original research, so that doesn't work either. You can state the two things separately, with proper context. For example (using the WSJ as a source):
 * According to the Wall Street Journal, Clinton's position on same-sex marriage has "largely tracked public opinion," such as "favoring arrangements like civil unions that fell short of marriage." In 2004, she opposed a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and in 2006 she said she would not oppose an effort by New York State officials to legalize same-sex marriage. In 2013, she formerly stated her support for same-sex marriage after stepping down as Secretary of State, stating she supported it "personally and as a matter of policy and law."
 * How does that sound? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be frank: it sounds like POV pushing to me. Wikipedia is not a PR exercise. user: MrX and User:Gaijin42's versions were fact-based and neutral. One of them should be restored.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think you mean formally, not formerly. But either way, please no PR.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How can it be "POV pushing" if it comes directly from a source you provided, with no embellishment? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are purposefully only trying to pick good things about her three-year-old support for marriage equality, by making it sound like the American people agreed with her, etc. This is exhausting. I just hope User:Gaijin42 gets to restore his fact-based content and we can stop pretending she is some kind of gay rights activist: this is ridiculous! She has other attributes, but this is not one of them.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Gaijin42's version, while technically correct and well intentioned, used inappropriate terminology not supported by the source. My version is a fuller accounting of Clinton's "evolution" that mirrors the WSJ source you provided. The facts are that Clinton's views on same-sex marriage are similar to those of most Americans, in that they are unremarkable, and they have evolved much like those of everyone else (including President Obama). You are pointedly trying to make Clinton's views seem unusual in some way. Before accusing others of POV pushing, perhaps you had better look at your own behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to something in Scjessey's ballpark, but if we are going to walk down the path to her current position, that path must include where she made explicit statements opposing gay marriage, and her support of DOMA. there is no wiggle room on her starting position. She explicitly said marriage is between a man and a woman, and she reiterated her prior position on NPR saying that it was not a political calculus position but one that she actually held. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't object to that. Can you provide some example text here? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, take the long history of her opposition to Political positions of Hillary Clinton. The initial trimmed version by User:Gaijin42 was preferable in my opinion. The current version sounds POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The following text is largely stolen from the ppohc article, just heavily trimmed and summarized. Presumably the sources used there back the stuff there already, but I have not confirmed that personally. I didn't copy the refs, while we work out a summary we can agree on. the addition I have made from that article is the DOMA statement, which should probably be added to that article in some capacity as well. Here is a source for it, I realize bloomberg is less than optimal, but presumably there are others as well since itsreferring to an interview http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-10/hillary-clinton-first-lady-on-gay-marriage-a-case-study-in-opacity. i swapped out the 2000 quote instead of the 2004 "marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman" since they seem mostly equivalent, and having the earlier position staked out seems better. I've kept both introductory sentences, as they both seem sourceable, and serve to anchor the topic to the campaign.

In her 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton is more aggressively aligning herself with the LGBT community than in the past. According to the Wall Street Journal, Clinton's position on same-sex marriage has "largely tracked public opinion.

In 2000, Clinton said she would have voted in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and that "marriage has always been, between a man and a woman". In 2003, Clinton said that she opposed allowing same-sex marriage while affirming her support for some form of civil unions for same-sex couples,as well as her opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. In 2007 she said she supported repealing the third section of DOMA, and while personally opposed to same sex marriage thought it should be left to the states to decide. In March 2013, Clinton came out in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry "personally and as a matter of policy and law"

In June 2015, Clinton explained why she changed her position on same-sex marriage at a CNN town hall, saying that she "evolved over time". She added, "I'm very, very proud to state that I'm a full supporter of marriage equality right now."


 * wapo source for the 2000 position https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/how-hillary-clinton-evolved-on-gay-marriage/ Gaijin42 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This certainly sounds more NPOV.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. But I think we also need to explain the significance.  Oscar Wilde for example did not say anything about same sex marriage, but that does not mean he was anti-gay because the issue came up long after.  Also, Donald Trump has had a far better record on LGBT rights (He called for repeal of "Don't ask don't tell in 2000.)  Sanders also.  That should be mentioned.  TFD (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that should be mentioned here because this article is not a comparative analysis.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it is. Because a candidate's positions are only important to the extent they differ from other major candidates.  Clinton for example supports the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th amendments up until the latest, except the 18th which was repealed, but so does everyone else.  She also supports free elections, equality before the law, motherhood, the right of Americans to use English.  We do  not have sections on these views.  Her LGBT views are only important because there has been controversy about LGBT rights.  OTOH no on is interested in whether she thinks opposite couples should be allowed to marry, because no one wants to remove that right.  TFD (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should get into the details of Trump or Sander's opinions, but I'm sure there is some reliably sourced opinion that could be used as a summary statement just to say that her opinions have been compared to theirs and that they had "evolved" earlier or something. While we work on such sourcing/statements, I don't think the lack of that material should prevent us from moving forward with the text above (assuming Scjessey finds the above acceptable as well), because its an improvement over the current state. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've made a small copy edit to better reflect what the WSJ says. I'm not sure we need to even attribute it to the WSJ, because I don't think there is much dispute about how her position has changed. - MrX 02:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Gaijin42: I think you should copy and paste your version in the mean time. It is much, much more NPOV than the current one.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The version I wrote was much more neutral, and the changes MrX made have made it considerably better. Incidentally, I disagree with TFD's suggestion that we need to compare Clinton's positions with those of Trump and Sanders. This article is about Clinton's campaign, and we need to stay on point. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What elements make your porposed version more netural than my proposed version? Certainly yours cuts out all mention of doma suport and explicit statements against gay marriage but "favorable to clinton" is not the same thing as neutrality. My version is sourced pretty much straight from the political positions articles. We could add in more transition states, but I am not sure every step along the path is important (but don't object if you think a particular transition step is important). On the other hand, it is important to show that between 2000 and 2013 she completely reversed her position. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * She didn't "completely reverse her position" though. She took the small step from supporting same-sex civil unions to supporting same-sex marriage. The only legal difference between the two is that the state-level protections accorded to civil unions are extended to include federal protections. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Activist editing
This edit is an appalling example of activist editing. The change made by Zigzig20s mischaracterized the truth and did not follow Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, so I reverted it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I trimmed it. User:Scjessey: Your editing looks POV (and "activist", to use your own term?) to me. You keep redacting referenced uncomfortable truths about HRC and trying to re-write her history as if she were a saint. This is not a PR exercise. She wouldn't let me get married in my early twenties for example; please don't make her sound pro-gay!Zigzig20s (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not fair to say that Clinton opposed SSM without also acknowledging her general support of LGBT issues. Assuming we accept the WSJ article as a reasonable analysis of Clinton's (public) LGBT positions, then all we have to do is paraphase this:
 * - MrX 14:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * user: MrX: The problem is that this is too vague. What gay-rights stances did she supposedly support? Did she propose any pro-LGBT bills in the Senate?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Not until" should read "in". Or perhaps I should say it should "supposedly" read "in". - Wikidemon (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Zigzig20, from the same source: "As a sitting senator in 2004, she spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed constitutional amendment barring same sex marriage." The article doesn't get into much more detail than that. One person's "vague" is another person's "concise summary", I suppose.- MrX 14:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds like she proposed zero pro-LGBT bills in the Senate then. Ergo, I don't think we need to claim she supported gay rights. She could have proposed a bill for employment non-discrimination for example, but she didn't.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it's good that we haven't added any claims of her proposing any such bills. All we need to do here is follow the yellow brick road source.- MrX 15:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it's good that we haven't added any claims of her proposing any such bills. All we need to do here is follow the yellow brick road source.- MrX 15:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thats probably a bit strong. While I get that civil unions are not full equality, she was advocating a position that was better than the status quo. While you are well within your rights to not be happy about that state, we can't characterize that state as "no support". as of 99 she was supporting extending benefits to domestic partners, 2000 civil unions (with hospital, inheritance etc protections). Again these are maybe not what you wanted, but they were more than you had. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Caucuses and primaries
I was thinking that we should turn the Caucuses and primaries section into a sortable table for readability and space considerations. Does anyone object to this?- MrX 12:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait a bit, or make it an addition. Interesting detail can be lost, for example, ideas about why she lost Michigan. Or who puts her over the top in the South. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, if there's not interest in this I'll leave it alone.- MrX 19:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, this would duplicate work done elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with white men
I wonder if this new section should in stead be called 'Support from white men'? Also, is there enough coverage to justify a full section? Perhaps we should have a section discussing all of the polling demographics. - MrX 12:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, "support" sounds POV. Besides, the New York Times article suggests white men don't support her. So "support" would be a falsehood. And "Lack of support" probably wouldn't get consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * About 35% of white men vote Democrat. So white men do support her; the problem is that diminished support due to various factors can result in loss of an election. Her strong support of gun control is particularly dangerous in certain states. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point about the title. I didn't think about it that way.- MrX 15:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Did she talk about the Confederate past of Arkansas as First Lady? If she did, this should be added to this subsection for the sake of context.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? White men who obsess about the Confederacy vote Republican. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. And because it is relevant to her career path.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Who added this gem?:"Low support by white men has been associated with Democratic losses in past presidential elections such as those of McGovern in 1972 and Mondale in 1984." Absurd OR and is not in the source. As if this is 30-40 years ago when having 35-40% support of white men meant losing an election. Obama had 41% in 2008 and cleaned McCain's clock, and 35% in 2012 and won decidedly. The so-called section is weak and should be removed, especially without context. Dave Dial (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The quoted information is in the source. It was The New York Times author who felt it was relevant to the current situation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that now. I retract the OR portion of my concerns. Dave Dial (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the entire section. It's not helpful to break down our coverage of encyclopedia subjects into sections by gender. I doubt there's anything remarkable here, in that all candidates do better in some demographic groups than others. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidemon: Why are you keeping the two demographic groups where she tests higher (blacks and the gay establishment) and removing the one where she tests very poorly (white men)? That seems POV to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question. There are 20-30 minority groups in America. When you have double categories like white men, gay latinos, disabled immigrants, and so on, there are far more. We can't and shouldn't have a separate section for each in every politics article, although sourcing can probably be had for each. There would have to be something particularly striking, or significant, or unusual in order to mention it, much less to have its own section. I don't think the sources have identified anything like that. Some mention white male support for Donald Trump, even among Democratic voters, but that would go in some other article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In theory I agree with you. Frankly I don't believe in fragmenting voters into specific minority groups, but that's a broader problem with political science. Regarding the "Caucasian vote" (sic), does she have a history of giving speeches in front of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and similar groups as First Lady of Arkansas?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep this information in the article, but maybe create a demographics section to cover the level of support she is receiving from different groups. Obviously the LGBT and African-American sections have significantly more coverage and should remain whole.- MrX 19:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * regarding the confederacy type questions, unless you can show that such speeches are covered as part of the campaign coverage, it would not be appropriate for this article. For both the black and gay demographics, there have been a significant number of stories discussing her level of support, and stories digging into why that support may or may not be there based on her prior actions/statements. A section on white support (which maybe covers lower white male support in a sentence) is probably justifiable based on coverage. Going into her history with support of confederate groups or not would not be supportable, unless you can show sources linking those events to what her support is/isnt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We already know about the Robert Byrd controversy. But I agree with you--if it becomes a campaign issue, we should add more about her views on Southern history.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that an overall view might be best, commenting on strengths and weaknesses. If there are sources for that and editors feel there is enough weight. Other than that, probably best to keep it to NPOV analysis that sources make. I think people remember some of the same questions for Obama in 2008, where he supposedly had problems with the 'white vote' and Clinton was getting the 'working class whites'. I think most know what happened, but nothing wrong with a little analysis if sources point it out. Dave Dial (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that it is going to change as the election progresses. Once Clinton has the nomination, she will inherit most of the white male vote currently going to Sanders. I think it is more useful to add this sort of thing to certain primaries. For example, "Clinton's big win in [some state] was primarily due to [some group] turning out in big numbers." The advantage of doing it that way is that it won't become dated. Just a thought. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey: "she will inherit"? They might transfer over to Trump.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The section as written was uninformative and it was correct to remove it. However white men are a significant demographic and it would be helpful to have an informative section.  (I do  not like the term "Relationship with" because it could have more than one meaning.)  It is not clear that most of the "Bernie Bros" will move to Clinton.  It could be that most of them will stay home, vote for third parties or vote Republican.  A large portion of them were non-voters, or independents, rather than merely Democrats who are more liberal than Clinton.  In fact, it may be that some supporters are moving already.  TFD (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The section summarized information from a reliable source. That it was worthy of being on the front page of The New York Times establishes its notability. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't really speculate about what is going to happen months from now. The same thing was said about the white Hillary voters in 2008. Whatever the PUMAS decided to do, wasn't even a footnote on the election. But I do agree with you about the 'relationship with' and that a more thorough overall analysis might make the article better. And Fred, no it was not a summary of the article. The portion I quote above was nowhere in the article and isn't relevant in 2016 anyway. Dave Dial (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be foolish to think all of Bernie's white male voters are "Bernie Bros". Most of them are Democrats, and only a tiny proportion of that group will vote for the carnival barker. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So far no reason founded on Wikipedia policy has been advanced which would justify removal of this relevant information from a reliable source has been advanced. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Saying "support for Clinton from white men is weak" is vague. Weak compared to Democrats in general, Sanders or the electorate? By how much? How critical is it? And I do not see why McGovern and Mondale should be mentioned. Clinton is expected to win and certainly not likely to lose 49 states. The source says the Democrats lost white male voters after Johnson, yet they managed to win 5 out of 12 elections, and that demographic is shrinking relatively speaking. Also, it would probably be more balanced to combine it with mention of female/non-white support. TFD (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your suggestions are good but not in the source. Instances of lost elections when support of white men was particularly weak were mentioned in the source. I'm sure other good analyses of Clinton's support among all elements of the white population can be found and added to the section. Notable is loss of support of young white women, who have voted for Sanders. Hard to see them switching to Trump, but he is a serious danger with respect to older white workers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your source says, "The fading of white men as a Democratic bloc is hardly new: The last nominee to carry them was Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and many blue-collar “Reagan Democrats” now steadily vote Republican." That provides context to the statement that Clinton's support is weak.  And as other sources have said, Sanders was ab le to draw back some of these Reagan Democrats as well as independents who probably will not move to Clinton, and stands to lose about one third of his supporters.  That's why he shows better in polls against Republicans.  Not that he would do better, but a number of his supporters would prefer a Republican to Clinton.  TFD (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:The Four Deuces: This sounds like a crystal ball to me. Many commentators have suggested that HRC would lose while Sanders would win if Trump became the GOP nominee. But again, that's crystal ball. We should just stick to this fact: she tests very badly among white men.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, we should stick to no fact in this case. It simply isn't very notable Clinton has a somewhat depressed support in that demographic. It has not stopped her from winning most of the contests and most of the votes. Were it to actually prevent her from winning, then it would certainly be notable. I agree with the removal per WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But WP:WEIGHT does not apply. White men are an important demographic to any Democratic candidate, and particularly so with Trump, a possible Republican nominee, having success with them. I have not searched much in other sources but placement of an article on the subject of The New York Times is weight. We can expect many analyses of this demographic, particularly if Trump is the nominee. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Balancing aspects" says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." To me that means we cannot say that Clinton's white male support is weak without saying that that has historically been true of the Democratic Party, at least since the 1968 election.  It's a bit like saying Cruz is weak with Hispanic voters.  (Clinton does better with white men than Cruz does with Hispanics.)  But it is misleading without explaining the context.  Zigzig20s, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" does not preclude reporting significant opinions, it just means that editors cannot add in their own predictions.  The 2016 presidential election for example remains in the future, but articles can still mention it.  TFD (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course WP:WEIGHT applies. First of all, this article is not about Donald Trump so it doesn't matter what is or important to him. Second, we are only in the primaries at this point and Clinton is not running against Trump. For all we know, white men might flock to Hillary Clinton in the general. Finally, the fact that something appears in the NYT does not confer importance. Horoscopes appear in the NYT, and they aren't important either. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Scjessey could you please verify that you are not joking; that you are advancing, in all seriousness, an argument that The New York Times is not a reliable source of notable information regarding United States politics and that the presence of a horoscope column is somehow relevant. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely totally serious with a cherry on top that this isn't important, but at no time did I say the NYT was not a reliable source. Re-read what I said. Just because something appears in the NYT, it does not mean it is "important". The same applies to any newspaper or news organization. Importance/notability is a subjective thing that can be gleaned by studying a body of reliable sources, and discerning what the sense of the preponderance of those sources is. My point is that the NYT is filled with things that aren't important, so just being in the NYT is no guide to importance. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm learning something about how Wikipedia uses Notability. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. In some ways the standard inside an article is higher, in some ways lower. Nobody has ever been able to agree on a firm rule for what goes in an article, just some sets of principles like maintaining due weight, NPOV, encyclopedic tone, and informing a lay reader about a subject. Most of the policy stuff like BLP, verifiability, and reliable sourcing are rules about excluding stuff, not rules on how to decide what to include and how to organize it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What does apply is DUE, Neutral point of view. In what way does the material in the NYT's source fail to be a significant point of view. What other points of view should in your opinion be included? What are the sources of those points of view? User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't work that way. A better question is this. Can you show the preponderance of reliable sources express the view that Clinton isn't doing well with white males? Waving the NYT at us like it's the proverbial stone tablets isn't sufficient. You need to demonstrate that it is a significant campaign thing, written about by lots of good sources that broadly agree. That applies to everything in articles like this, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will find more sources and put the information back in the article. Any suggestions for a title for the section? How about a section "Demographics" then put African Americans, women, young people, and white men under it? User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Re white men
There is commentary in The Washington Post about the original NYT's article, "As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men," "Hillary Clinton doesn’t need white men" I'll look for more. As noted in The Washington Post piece, "...an article of a kind we’ve seen before and will likely see many times again before this election is over, warning that Hillary Clinton has a serious problem with white men, a problem that could threaten her ability to win a general election..." User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * An older article in The Atlantic "Hillary Clinton’s Problem With Men"

You can see two general viewpoints: It is a serious matter and It doesn't matter much. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC
here; why was it removed? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  13:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "not viable" does not seem to be an adequate explanation. Edwardx (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I propose that, unless the deleting editor expands upon his edit summary, the RfC is summarily reinstated? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  13:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Commenting as an outsider, I think the RfC seemed fair and to the point. I don't know if I missed something and would love to hear the remover's reasons. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain of the removing editor's reasons, but I imagine it has something to do with the way the RfC was framed. The diff in the proposal suggests the editor is seeking to reinstate the sentence as it was previously in the article; however, this approach has been criticized by several editors because of the way it was added. It was a short sentence with an overly-large number of references that was placed in a section that had nothing to do with the proposed content. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC did include "or is there a better way to add this referenced info?" So, the proposer was certainly open to an alternative phrasing for any RfC. Edwardx (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've re-added it below, per a request from Zigzig - if any reframing is needed that can be done/discussed there. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's a WP:SNOW issue that's already been discussed, and the proposing editor is having some serious disruption problems here that we're only enabling if we humor them. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not actually a WP:SNOW issue. It seems so due to several people engaging in biased editing here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the abstract, perhaps not. But as a matter of process, engaging in RfCs when their many bad proposals fail to get traction is the last thing we need out of this editor. Please don't leverage their own behavior as a way to disparage other editors. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was Hercules that cleaned the Augean stables; I'm afraid I'm not up to the task; however, you can voluntarily cease editing in a biased manner User:Wikidemon. You have a long history of biased editing here. I would discount any comment you make if I were closing the AFC. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, go ahead and leverage another editor's disruptive behavior as a way to disparage other editors, I can't stop you. But it's not exactly helpful to the task of creating an encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Better Photograph Is Needed
A better photograph for the candidate is needed, the current one on the extant article is unflattering, a more neutral photo would seem to be more NPOV. The one being used makes her look dimwitted which I think is a (somewhat mild) bending of NPOV. Can't something better be found that's in the Public Domain? Damotclese (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clinton_SQ.png Comes round or square User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Campaigning
To my mind, an article about Clinton's presidential campaign needs to have some more about the actual campaigning. I think we should have a "campaign timeline" section which includes debates, town halls, stump speeches, notable events and media coverage. A section like this would be perfect for campaign highlights like Bernie saying nobody was interested in Clinton's emails, Clinton's town hall in Flint, the "artful smear" debate over paid speeches (which would then give us a good opportunity to explore that issue more deeply), discussions about momentum swinging back and forth, etc. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

relationship with african american voters redux
As demonstrated by the results of the South Carolina Democratic primary, where 6 out of 7 African American Democrats voted for her, Clinton has broad support in the African American community

might need some updating. We can probably wait for the next round of primary results to see how the pre-polls line up with the exit polls, but we may need to say that she started out very strong in this area, and then waned as the election progressed.


 * "Hillary Clinton’s Support Among Nonwhite Voters Has Collapsed"
 * "According to at least one poll, Sanders leads Clinton among African-American voters in Wisconsin by 11 points"

On the other hand Gaijin42 (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/black-women-uniting-in-support-for-clinton-in-2016/


 * The introductory sentence you quote there is editorializing, and ephemeral. The very notion that a fact "demonstrates" something implies an observer making a judgment, something that is not encyclopedic in nature. Her support in a particular place and time is a possible fact; if that is part of a larger pattern or a changing one it is not due to demonstrating anything. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I quite agree that that sentence is problematic. Talk to Mr Bauder (primarily) and Mr Jessey (secondarily), who are the ones that wrote it. . Gaijin42 (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't write any of that. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * . Apologies. When I clicked next diff I saw you replacing the sources, but neglected to read closely enough to notice it was for different content. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Clinton's support among African Americans is much broader in the South, but so is her support among white people. In general however she outpolls Sanders among African Americans.  TFD (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Secret Goldman Sachs speeches

 * Note: Manually unarchived per request from User:Zigzig20s, who initiated an RfC on the subject, below - Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Should this info appear in this article or in the Hillary Clinton article? No one has responded at Talk:Hillary Clinton, so I thought I would ask here. The main problem is, when did she give those speeches? Was it before or after her campaign began? Has she disclosed the transcripts? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The content of the speeches she gave before industry groups were often in venues where no reporters were allowed and no transcripts made or videos published. At the last debate she said she would consider releasing transcripts but control over that may not rest with her but with the group or organization she spoke to. We would not want to take material from any transcript directly but use summaries in reliable sources such as The New York Times. It is doubtful she would release damning statements during a campaign. The fact she said she would consider releasing transcripts might be suitable for the article, but it is rather fine-grained. We have a long journey with this article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The speeches weren't "secret", since everybody in the world new about them. As has been documented in numerous places, the speeches happened after she left the State Department and before she announced her campaign. She is under no obligation to "disclose" anything. Nobody raised this issue about Mitt Romney's speeches, or Jeb Bush's speeches, or Carly Fiorina's speeches. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey: I think the fair comparison would be to her Democratic competitor, who gave none. The Investor's Business Daily says, "The Clinton Tapes: What Is Hillary Hiding In Those Secret Goldman Sachs Transcripts?".Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue about permission from the groups is a red herring. The Harry Walker agency contracts reserve all rights to the speeches for the speaker. I agree that Clinton is unlikely to release anything damning during the election. But the fact that she is unlikely to release anything at all is something to cause speculation about how damning it is. In any case, this issue probably does require coverage in our article, as there are many reliable sources discussing these speeches, her reluctance to release the transcripts, and now the commentary from audience members describing the speeches as "glowing" towards wall street.  Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like a faux issue to me, although this is a campaign article and a large number of campaign events have no real-world relevance. Between the two Clintons, they gave 729 (paid) speeches since Bill left office, usually earning something over $200K each for a total of $153 million. Of those, at least 39 were to big banks, 8 to Goldman-Sachs. Goldman is (one of?) the biggest banks in the world, so although their extremely profitable speech-giving engagements are probably relevant to their bio articles, it's not particularly noteworthy here that just over 1% of their many speeches were given to one client or that, like most such speeches, the transcripts were not released — not unless it becomes a bona fide issue in the campaign. Right now it seems to be news of the day material on the part of her left-leaning detractors and challenger, and perhaps any Republican nominee who is promoting an anti-bank message. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As voters express their preference for a candidate that can be trusted, as was the case in New Hampshire, it becomes an issue in the campaign. Bona fides being established by reliable sources about voter motivation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidemon: I think what you're doing is original research. I agree with User:Gaijin42 that we should stick to the third-party sources on this.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia editing process is original research. It's article content that cannot contain it. Weighing the sources, there are few sources on the subject, they do not describe it as significant apart from being a current campaign issue, some do describe which Clinton detractors the issue is coming from, and they say that the Goldman speeches are neither secret nor a significant proportion of the Clintons' many speaking engagements. Simply saying that Clinton took money speaking for Goldman Sachs would be inappropriate. Saying that so-and-so criticized Clinton for making such speeches in process of the 2016 campaign and she responded such-and-such, if of due weight, would be a fair thing to include. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidemon: Please familiarize yourself with No original research. User:Gaijin42 provided lots of references. There are many if you google "Hillary Clinton Goldman Sachs speech". That includes very reliable sources like The Washington Post. Many sources suggest she is hiding something in those speeches, which is why she won't disclose the transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Zigzig20s: Please familiarize yourself with No original research. You have provided exactly zero sources to support your proposition that I am engaging in original research. What were we discussing here? Oh yes, whether the sources are of due weight and relevance to support adding mention of an issue surrounding Clinton's speeches to Goldman as being a campaign issue. I say no, you seem to say yes. Hence, we discuss on the talk page any relevance to the subject. As for whether we suggest that she is "hiding something", I'm afraid that is the realm of political advocacy, not encyclopedias. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidemon: You're the only who brought up OR. In any case, read this article from the Investor's Business Daily and countless other sources you can find on Google. The national media is not advocating for anything; they are simply reporting the news, as this article from The Washington Post also does. They have reported that the speeches were highly paid and that she wants to keep the transcripts secret. Wikipedia is not censored; this should not be redacted from her article. This is not a campaign ad. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Zigzig20s: You're the only who brought up OR. I agree that Clinton's speeches to Goldman have been one of several campaign issues of the day for the past couple of days of the news cycle, and that sources like the one you mention above are engaging in the usual speculation and coverage of the horse race of politics. That doesn't amount to "countless" sources, or anything approaching due weight for an article like this. All of the Clintons' speeches are highly paid and presumably most of them are gracious to the host, including the slightly over 1% of them made for this particular corporate client. If that turns out to be a significant campaign issue, we'll know soon enough. In the meanwhile, WP:NOT as they say. This is an encyclopedia, not a scandal rag. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidemon: No, you did. Read your antepenultimate comment. User:Gaijin42, who said it should be included in the article, gave you ten references. We could find more. It's not a matter of news--it's become a "campaign issue" as The Washington Post reported, and this article is about the campaign. It would be POV to censor it from this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Zigzig20s: No, you did. Read your comment at 22:23, 9 February 2016, your misapplication of the concept to talk page discussion is the first mention of original research on this page unless you count the talk header. And to spare you the suspense, pulling a "please familiarize yourself with" line in talk page discussion does raise hackles — as does crying censorship and POV. Having perused most of Gaijin42's wall of references and google too, I find exactly what I stated, that this is news of the day not sourced at this point as a substantive campaign issue suitable for inclusion at this time. It pays to be careful with campaign articles not to clutter things up with every last thing that flies in. I can take a look again in a few days or weeks to reevaluate my take on whether this has any lasting importance. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidemon: We disagree. I guess we'll have to see what the other editors think. Btw, she still has not disclosed those secrets transcripts, so she might be hiding something as the press suggests but--who knows.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, they're not "secret". And some of your comments border on libel, and could be considered a serious BLP violation, even if they are mentioned in sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I have zero opinion about this. You are expressing your own opinion when you say they are not secret; I am just sticking to third-party references. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to remain neutral and expand articles by using references. Whether you like the content of the references or not is meaningless, when The Washington Post, Investor's Business Daily, etc. have written about it. It is totally POV to have nothing about it in her Wikipedia article.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How can they be "secret" if everyone knows about them? Just because the Hillary-hating, right-leaning Investors Business Daily refers to them as "secret", that does not make it so. Wikipedians are meant to use judgement in assessing sources, not act as stupid automatons and fall into the trap of parroting right wing crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The transcripts are secret. She won't disclose what she said during those highly paid speeches. Politico has an article about it, where an attendee says, "She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director". But as long as she won't disclose the official transcripts, nobody knows for sure. I agree with you that we should give her the benefit of the doubt as I do, but the fact is those transcripts are indeed secret.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to disclose. There's no there there. As Politico says, Sanders and the Republicans will exploit the issue if she releases the transcripts (although since they are technically owned by the people who paid her, it is not clear if she would need permission to do so) and they will exploit the issue if she doesn't. Anyway, congratulations for buying into the bullshit Beltway media narrative. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey: We don't know. She may be hiding something--nobody knows for sure. I think everyone's concern is that her presidential style, were she to get elected, would be secretive and non-transparent. Thus, this is not trivial. It may be axiomatic of her leadership style. In any case, I don't believe this should be censored from her campaign article. It should be added to the "Fundraising" subsection, with her other multi-million dollar donations/speeches. Readers/voters should be smart enough to trust her.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

They are not owned by the people who paid her. Her speaking contract specifically says that she retains full ownership and all rights to the speeches. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Gaijin42: Interesting. How do you know? Can you please provide a reference for this?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

While we don't have the specific contract for Sachs (which theoretically could be different) we do have several contracts from her other speaking events, and they all include the same language (which is unsurprising, as it is the standard Harry Walker Agency language, and giving up the rights would mean should couldn't give the same speech to a different audience which would be idiotic). The lecture and all supporting materials remain the intellectual property of the speaker The chance that the sachs speech was different? pretty low. Also of note : The venue is responsible for providing a transcription of the speech, delivered immediately at the conclusion (they have type it up in real time)
 * 2014 UNLV contract
 * 2014 some random foundation
 * 2013 University of Con
 * 2013 Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Politico article cites Buzzfeed for this. The Politico article is a good source, not about the content of the speeches, although there is some information, but about hopes of the campaign that the controversy would blow over, fall below the radar of most voters. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "I expect Mr. Sanders to press aggressively on Mrs. Clinton’s paid speeches before big banks, as he has in the last few days." From a New York Times article on "What to look for" in the Debate tonight. Let's see. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is speculation to that effect. If he does, and if it gets covered extensively, that adds to the argument for mentioning it as a campaign issue. I have a feeling it will be a campaign issue, particularly in the primary. It will probably come out in a line like "Beginning in the [describe] Democratic debate, and throughout the primary campaign, Sanders repeated a criticism of Clinton as being too close to Wall Street business interests, and earning $[amount] from making paid speeches to large banks including Goldman Sachs. Sanders [and others?] called for transcripts of those speeches to be made public, but as of [date] Clinton had not done so." Something like that. But I still think we should give it another few days to see if this sticks around as an issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that text similar to that is appropriate as a start, and also that we can hold off for now, but if Sanders doesn't pounce on this, Im not sure that doesn't mean its still not worthy of inclusion (although it would certainly be less worthy of extended WP:WEIGHT). How much is or isn't appropriate obviously depends on how much noise and coverage this gets. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Either way, given the extensive coverage it's gotten so far, it should definitely be added to the "Fundraising" subsection--not because of voter unease over ethical questions, but because it is a fact that her campaign is partly run on money from the financial services. That's nothing to be ashamed of.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? Is she self-funding her campaign? If not, perhaps the Clinton Cash section should be expanded and retitled because it seems to be a similar issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably not self-funded, as she is "dead broke". But OpenSecrets.org (a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics) suggests her third largest donor is Paloma Partners, a hedge fund founded by Donald Sussman. Hedge funds are in the financial services industry.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Clinton's multimillion-dollar donations from "hedge fund guys" Donald Sussman and George Soros came up in last night's debate; Judy Woodruff mentioned these two names specifically. There was also an article in The Wall Street Journal about her secret speeches today: Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Talks Were Highly Paid, Friendly. Still no official transcripts though. In any case, I'm afraid I don't see a good argument for keeping this campaign issue out of her campaign article. I think it should go in the "Fundraising" subsection.User:Gaijin42: Would you not agree?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Bill Maher mentioned those secret Goldman Sachs transcripts again a few days ago. It is still an issue apparently. Should we add more about this to the article?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, this should be removed from the article, so I'll do so. Recentism gone stale, with the unencyclopedic verb tense to match ("have become…"). This one fell off the map a few days after it appeared. A comedian mentioning it a month later doesn't count. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is not stale at all. It was mentioned again on national television this weekend. Your deletion of referenced info without consensus is not OK.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm starting to partially agree Zigzig20s on this. I've removed the current sentence because it is inartfully added. It needs to be completely rewritten with more context. But the fact remains that now a little time has passed and the issue has had a chance to mature, this is no longer a recentism matter. It's totally unfair that Clinton should be getting bashed for this perfectly normal thing virtually every politician does, but she is getting bashed (particularly by Sanders) and it even appears to be impacting her "trustworthiness" polling numbers. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence is this: "Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, for $675,000, have become "a campaign issue".   ". We should probably add, "She repeatedly refused to release the transcripts." But at the very least, the initial sentence should be reinserted because Wikipedia is not censored and there is significant media coverage about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an issue in her campaign. This article is about her campaign. This is not an issue in Sanders's campaign, because he never gave six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs. But even if he had, that would appear in his campaign article, not here.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I had added four references; we could probably find one hundred, but I didn't want to Overcite.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey: Did you redact the sentence because you want her to come across as less untrustworthy? It sounds like you are trying to change her polling numbers. I am sorry, but that is not your role as a Wikipedia editor. Biased editing is not allowed. Please revert your redaction and try to be a neutral editor.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * First of all, please cut it out with the accusations. If Scjessey is right and it's a longer-term issue we can cover it in some way. It's not the fact that her opponent or a political comedian are still talking about it, but whether the press discussion among reliable sources is still covering it. However, saying the speeches "have become" a campaign issue is bad form, and weak substance. Imagine reading this article in a historic context, a year from now. Can you say, as of March 2017 that Clinton's speeches have become an issue? No, it makes no sense. Wrong verb tense. Also, describing this passively is uninformative. They didn't become an issue on their own. In fact, the speeches aren't an issue, it's the making of the speeches, and they are apparently being made an issue by Sanders, and perhaps some other critics with a particular point of view. And what of the context? Something like 8 of her 729 paid speeches since Bill left office, each earning something north of $200K,  were to Goldman, and 31 to other big banks. That's the background. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidemon: Please stop doing original research! "Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, for $675,000, are "a campaign issue"." That is the least we could add, given the extensive media coverage this has received. We could add that she has refused to release the transcripts repeatedly, and that the media has suggested she must be hiding something. But the redacted sentence was utterly factual and neutral.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No. As I said, bad form, bad content. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "I don't like it", is not an argument. This is fact-based content with plenty of references. It should not be censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you keep coming across as a Hillary-hating POV warrior, I'm not going to be predisposed to work with you on doing this right. Right now you are doing the Wikipedia equivalent of temper tantrum, shrieking unfounded accusations about censorship and original research. Take a step back. I've got other things to do today, but I am also giving some thought to the best way to approach this. There's no hurry, but I intend to return to this matter in a few hours. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey: Please restore the completely fact-based, neutral, referenced one sentence you redacted in the mean time. You can change "have become" to "are" if you prefer.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because it is non-neutral and inartfully added. As I promised, I will look at this later. I agree with you that something needs to be said, but your version is poorly conceived. CALM DOWN. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey: It was succinct but factual. Now that you've redacted it, what would you like to add instead?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm still mulling this over, but basically we have the following things to consider: I think the only fair way we can cover this is if we take all these points into account and presents both views with the appropriate weight. This is one of those sorts of things and  are really good at doing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * According to disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton to the FEC, she gave 51 paid speeches in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for a total of $11 million. (source)
 * These speeches were to various entities, including universities, banks and investment companies, insurance companies, retail companies, technology companies, advocacy groups, and many other private and public sector areas. (source, poor quality but useful reference)
 * Bernie Sanders has sought to politicize her speeches by questioning how she can talk about reining in Wall Street (notably Goldman Sachs) after taking their money for speeches she gave them, implying that money will somehow influence her decision-making.
 * Clinton's voting record as a Senator does not support the narrative Sanders has put forward.
 * Sanders has called for the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs to be released, though curiously he has not sought transcripts for any of the other speeches.
 * Clinton has questioned why she is the only candidate being asked this and suggested she is being held to a different standard.
 * The mainstream media has jumped on the bandwagon, countering Clinton's point by noting Republicans don't hide the fact that they want to deregulate the big banks even further, so speeches Republicans have given aren't important. (source)
 * Polling has suggested this matter, along with the email issue, has had a negative impact on Clinton's "trustworthy numbers".
 * None of this has anything to do with the "fundraising" section it was originally placed in, since none of the revenue from speeches has been used to finance the campaign. It should be in a different (or new) section.
 * User:Scjessey: No, that is Original Research, which is not your job as a Wikipedia editor! Stick to the sources. Or go write a blog if you want. But don't censor referenced info with countless reliable references here!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR before commenting any further. You simply don't have a clue what you are talking about. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but when you say "Clinton's voting record as a Senator does not support the narrative Sanders has put forward", who the dickens knows? Besides, you are trying to insert bias here, where there is none. The original sentence said she had given secret speeches for 6 figures, and that this had become a campaign issue. Those are facts, buttressed by many references. We should be able to agree on the facts, not get lost in speculations.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Clinton's self-fulfilling prophecy of victimhood is irrelevant. Who cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why won't she release the secret transcripts? This is the only reason why she is seen as "untrustworthy".Zigzig20s (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Clinton's votes are a matter of public record, and they do not support the Sanders narrative that she won't rein in Wall Street. Not original research. And again, calling the transcripts "secret" is arguably a BLP violation. In fact, it was recently brought up here. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, unless you have some sources analyzing those votes, and comparing them to sanders allegations and making the conclusion "do not support", that is a textbook example of WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It is OR.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The transcripts are secret because she has repeatedly refused to release them to the public. "Secret" is not our word; it's in the national press. Just google "secret Goldman Sachs speeches".Zigzig20s (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OR is a content policy for article pages, not a rule on how we may discuss things on the talk page. Calling them "secret" speeches or transcripts is ridiculous on its face. That's not the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason we are discussing this is to add it to the article. Please google "secret Goldman Sachs speeches". You may have the opinion that the entire press is "ridiculous", but nobody cares; you are not here to express opinions. We rely on third-party sources to write articles, not editorial opinions. Besides, since she won't receive the transcripts, they are secrets. I agree with the third-party sources (but even if I didn't, that wouldn't matter).Zigzig20s (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, secrecy starts with "Secrecy (also called clandestinity or furtiveness) is the practice of hiding information from certain individuals or groups who do not have the "need to know", perhaps while sharing it with other individuals. That which is kept hidden is known as the secret." The transcripts are hidden from certain groups (the American public/voters) and shared with other individuals (Goldman Sachs).Zigzig20s (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gaijin42 - When I wrote that list, I put in a few sources but I did not make any effort to do a proper job because it was just discussion. Obviously it would be properly sourced if it was in the article. And as Wikidemon said, original research is only something that matters when it comes to putting something in the article. @Zigzig20s - My point is that I'm not the only one saying use of the word "secret" is arguably a BLP violation. Unlike WP:OR, WP:BLP does apply across article and talk space alike. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not arguably so. It is the very definition of secrecy. Read above.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a loaded adjective that expresses a negative opinion on the subject. If you present a proposal in that way, it needlessly discourages editors from being receptive to it. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it denotes the neutral definition of the term. Or do you think secrecy should have a POV tag? I am simply using the word that the national press is using. I don't change words to make her sound less untrustworthy; it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to re-write history. We don't work in PR.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can say that all you want, but I'm telling you, using words like "secret" to describe well-known things is off-putting, and tends to alienate other editors. If you want to actually accomplish anything on this page instead of venting about Hillary Clinton, other editors, and the state of the article, best lay off the loaded adjectives. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not loaded. The transcripts are hidden from the American public. They are secrets, only known by Goldman Sachs. That's a fact. It's not loaded at all. It is factual. It may be an inconvenient truth, but it is still the truth. And that is why the press is calling them what they are--secret.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote what I wrote because Zigzag had made a comment about OR. In your refutation that it was not OR, you included a link, but that link was to a primary source. You made it sound like that was the source you were intending to use. Assuming there is sufficient sourcing for each element (and that we cover each element with appropriate weight) I think a section that covers each of those points is appropriate and will be good for the article. However, I note that the strategy you are suggesting for creating this section is completely contrary to the argument you made on the email server security discussion, where you said putting ultiple sources together to cover the sub-topic was synth. I disagreed with that interpretation then, and disagree with it now, which is why I think your proposal is workable as a starting point. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Er... "source, poor quality but useful reference" was what I said. I did not hold it up to any sort of a standard that could be used in the article, but more as a useful tool for giving us hard data on the money Clinton received for speeches. And no, I am not suggesting we synthesize a narrative; however, I am saying (and I repeat) I think the only fair way we can cover this is if we take all these points into account and presents both views with the appropriate weight. We must avoid the "buts" and "howevers" that seem to keep cropping up in some of the things I've reverted in this and other articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wires are getting crossed somewhere.I am unclear on why you are bringing up the zero hedge link as part of this sub-discussion. your "useful reference" comment is on the bullet point regarding the content of the speeches. My/Zig's OR comment is about the analysis that Clinton's votes do not match Bernie's comments. When Zig said that was OR, you refuted that assertion, and included a link (source?) with the comment about her votes being "public record". That link is a primary source, and as far as we have seen here, the analysis is yours. Do you have some other sources making the analysis of clintons votes and how they compare to Bernie's stumping?Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not even begun to look for supporting sources yet. When I made my list, I just threw up a couple of sources I already had to hand. That said, I've heard it discussed on cable news by well known pundits that Clinton's record on Wall Street is just as good as Barack Obama's, and that the intimations being made by Sanders are largely unfounded. Real life is intruding on my time at the moment, which is one of the reasons I suggested a couple of other editors take a look at it. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the mean time, I think we should restore the referenced facts that her six-figure Goldman Sachs speeches have become a campaign issue, and that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts. We can add some context if you want: Sanders never gave such speeches, but the Republicans did (although actually Trump probably didn't either?). We don't need to go into detail about her voting record on financial regulations--that is too contentious and frankly I think history will tell--but we should restore the facts as we know them now.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we are not putting your BLP-violating, non-neutral version into the article. Let's take our time to get this right. Why are you in such a hurry? Are you hoping your changes will have an impact on the election, or something? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is zero BLP violation about these facts. Are you hoping to have an impact by redacting uncomfortable truths about HRC?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to take a step back from this, because you are unable to control yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break redux
To be honest, I'm at something of a loss over the best way to cover this. As a former New York Senator, Clinton's "ties" to Wall Street are perfectly understandable and not at all unusual, yet her voting record shows support for measures that limited and regulated Wall Street. Having left her position as Secretary of State, it made perfect sense for Clinton to join the paid speech circuit. Obviously she stopped doing this when she announced her candidacy, so everything was perfectly legal and above board, and there is no legal reason for her to release transcripts of speeches (in some cases she would need to seek permission to do so, apparently).

Ultimately, it was the anti-Wall Street position of Bernie Sanders, and his subsequent politicization of some of the speeches that Clinton gave that led to this becoming a campaign issue. I absolutely agree that this needs to be covered in the article. It is remarkable, in fact, that Bernie's attacks on Clinton do not appear in Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 as far as I can tell. But how to cover this here? Certainly we don't need silly vernacular like the inappropriate use of the word "secret", but at the same time it must be made clear that Clinton's intransigence is hurting her "trustworthiness" numbers. I've been mulling all this over for 2 days now, and I've looked at this excellent source that gives a broader picture of what is going on, but it is hard to boil it down to something succinct that doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT. Help! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * HRC brought this on herself when she criticized Goldman Sachs, AIG and "hedge fund guys" in her own speeches. She has nobody but herself to blame. Now, the word secret is absolutely appropriate because, like the entire national press, we can all agree that they meet the very definition of secrecy, as they were/are known to Goldman Sachs and hidden from the American public. That's what secrets are (again, please re-read secrecy). This is why the press is using this word. And it's become a campaign issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not really looking for your extreme view on this issue, because it isn't going to be helpful moving forward. I already know where you stand. I am seeking assistance from other Wikipedia editors who are perhaps a little less invested than you are. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I don't have personal views. The national press does.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for other people's views on this, not yours. You have already made your views clear, thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Help! Restore the archived section about the "Secret Goldman Sachs speeches" please!
Hello. Can anyone please restore the archived "Secret Goldman Sachs speeches" discussion? It is not stale as it is part of the ongoing RFC discussion. I tried to restore it twice, but another user archived them again, bringing up something I don't understand. We need it restored for editors to understand the RFC, which lasts a month. This is very urgent. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, since you helped me restore the RFC, perhaps you'll want to help. Or anybody else. Please help! Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll check this out; after I put in the next section regarding White Men ; User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bring it back. It is too long for that. Editors may view it at Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016/Archive_2 and continue discussion here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who cares if it's long? It explains the RFC. It's not stale and should not have been archived.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the link for anyone interested in reading the archived material ➜ Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 2. It doesn't need to be on this page.- MrX 14:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it does because it's not stale as it's directly linked to the ongoing RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone who agreed with me restored it, but it was removed by another editor once again shortly after. It's relevant to the RFC; not stale; it should be restored.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be on this talk page. The stupidly-written RfC already has all the relevant information. Random IP editors with no editing history showing up out of nowhere don't count. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does need to be there because it is relevant to the (very popular) ongoing RFC. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not be eager to call attention to that discussion if I were you. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I created the (very popular) ongoing RFC to end the Wikidrama. The discussion, which you archived twice, explains why we needed the RFC. You and I disagree, that's why I requested an RFC. One editor in the discussion which should be restored said, "I'm looking for other people's views on this, not yours.". That is exactly how I feel--and that's what the RFC is for. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be blunt with you. You're showing zero self awareness of the quality of your edits, the mess they've been making, or your antagonizing other editors here. You won't even acknowledge that you screwed up the archive with your clumsy efforts. A simple "Oh, I didn't realize that" would suffice. If you intend to continue editing this article you'll need to start listening to the other editors here, not just the ones you choose to listen to. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you know how to unarchive this discussion properly, please do it. That is why I asked for help for this--to help outside editors understand the ongoing RFC better. Not interested in going around in circles about this. I have a busy life.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Outside editors are perfectly capable of looking at the archived discussion. Besides, the RfC didn't make any sense anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't like the RFC but who cares? Many outside editors have been smart enough to understand the RFC and respond; it's been a very popular RFC so far; that's all that matters. But the related discussion should be restored for them.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, because of the way you framed the RfC to promote your non-neutral view, some editors were hoodwinked into supporting it even though it is incredibly stupid and factually inaccurate. Anyway, it is largely academic because this discussion, and the reasonable compromise I proposed, has superseded your fail. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The RFC is completely neutral, as it presents a direct quote which was redacted. The RFC was created to hear from outside editors. No need to keep talking to me. Please stop. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But the RfC was stupid. It called for the restoration of a statement about paid speeches to Goldman Sachs that was in the wrong section. You had put it in the "fundraising" section, when it wasn't anything to do with fundraising whatsoever. As long as you persist on following this stupid path, I will be here to point out how stupid it is. I will happily stop talking to you about it as soon as you admit the RfC was wrong and end this foolishness -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not wrong. It is perfectly legitimate, as it is a reflection of the third-party sources from the national media. No one cares about your opinion; please rant/campaign on Twitter and let us create a POV-free Wikipedia article! Please stop and let outside editors have a chance to vote. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not legitimate at all. There are zero reliable sources saying that Clinton's speeches had anything to do with her election campaign fundraising. Zero. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. And what has my Twitter account got to do with this? That's a personal attack. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You post your Twitter account on your Wikipedia userpage. I will now ignore you completely.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but posting a link to a Twitter comment of mine as a passive aggressive way of suggesting I am using Wikipedia to "campaign" for Clinton is a personal attack. Like I said in the deleted user talk comment, if you persist in attacking other editors in this way you will find yourself forced to defend your behavior at WP:ANI. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

, I've gone ahead and unarchived this section per your request. My real objection to your unarchiving it, which is why I reverted earlier, was just to avoid a mess-up with the bot. Whether or not it really needs to be unarchived is not that important, no harm either way. The critical thing is that when you unarchive something manually, you have to remove the discussion from the archive at the same time as re-adding it to the talk page. Otherwise, you confuse the archive bot, which will add the discussion to the archive a second time, possibly a divergent copy that has extra comments people have made. The second thing you have to do is to make sure to add at least one comment with a current date, otherwise the bot will just re-archive it the next time it runs, because it sees that there has been no new discussion during the archive period. Hope this helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidemon: Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)